From ???@??? Sat Aug 1 17:34:11 1998 Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 15:33:13 -0700 From: "Theosophy World Editor" Subject: writing things of great value Message-Id: <199808012229.RAA08928@proteus.imagiware.com> In-Reply-To: <19980801011217.4894.qmail@www08.netaddress.usa.net> Estrella: One quick comment: >theos-talk ... is just TOO much for me to read In maintaining theos-talk and THEOSOPHY WORLD, I've noticed and heard a number of comments regarding how things are working. Many people cannot deal with the large volume of email, since they don't frequently check their email, or feel bad about deleting messages they don't carefully read, or haven't been able to take advantage of using filters in their email programs to set aside the mailing list messages from the others that they get. There are different things that people are getting out of the lists, and their use of the lists therefore varies. Some use it as a hang out to be with friends. Others use it as a soapbox to broadcast their personal ideas. Still others use it for an interchange of ideas, or an opportunity to ask questions and learn from others. The percentages tend to show the relative interests: . 69 percent -- THEOSOPHY WORLD only . 8 percent -- theos-talk digest version . 23 percent -- theos-talk regular version There's a definite demand for materials that have been sifted through, standardized in format, and somewhat predictable in size and frequency. Perhaps some of the people who dropped off of the mailing list might have stayed around if we cut down on the volume, were more careful in trimming out lengthy quotes, more thoughtful in replies, and so forth. It's hard to say, but something to keep in mind. I remember the early days of the theos-l mailing list, in the fall of 1993, when John Mead was writing asking us to not write so much because every message we were writing was costing people money to read -- some were on Compuserve which was charging a per-message fee at the time. Things have improved since then; email is basically free for most, if not everyone. The only cost to people now is one of time. Everything we write is making a demand on the time of others. Hopefully we can benefit others by our communications ... something we know in our hearts when we're writing something, where there's a good feeling inside and a sense of having created something of merit, after having written something, the opposite feeling of "yuck" or a sense of dullness, or a "so what" sense of indifference that might come from having written something of little value. Looking forward to reading postings of great value, -- Eldon From ???@??? Sat Aug 1 17:49:11 1998 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:37:42 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Another site Message-ID: <01bdbd9c$fef8ada0$LocalHost@default> With MKR and Sutratman listing sites, here is one that I bet most aren't aware of - The Temple of the People (was originally a Judge oriented and "other" offshoot at the turn of the century: - Jake J. From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 03:19:13 1998 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 03:06:59 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Another site Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980802030659.009a4270@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <01bdbd9c$fef8ada0$LocalHost@default> Thanks for the url. mkr At 06:37 PM 8/1/1998 -0400, you wrote: >>>> With MKR and Sutratman listing sites, here is one that I bet most aren't aware of - The Temple of the People (was originally a Judge oriented and "other" offshoot at the turn of the century: <<<www.jps.net/wg3/temple.htm> - Jake J. <<<<<<<< From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 09:49:12 1998 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 11:18:07 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: hermetic axiom Message-ID: Sutratman writes in #340: >The reduction of God to an "energy" is one of those >oddities circulating under >the umbrella word "New Age", derived no doubt from >Blavatskian theosophy >in its notion of the Absolute.  This would mean, so it >appears to me, that the >First Cause of the manifested universe is devoid of >Intelligence and Will, >which >violates the Hermetic axiom as above so below... --------------------------------------- It seems the Hermetic axiom "As above so below" would apply to relative existence and manifestation and not the SOURCE, which is neither "Above" nor "Below." From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 12:49:11 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:41:23 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: hermetic axiom Message-ID: In a message dated 8/2/98 10:55:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mmrj@powersupply.net mmrj writes: << It seems the Hermetic axiom "As above so below" would apply to relative existence and manifestation and not the SOURCE, which is neither "Above" nor "Below." >>' If we identify the Cosmic Logos as Sat-Chit-Ananda, then I feel we can talk of God in personal terms, for we too, have existence, consciousness and the capacity for bliss though not in the absolute sense (like God). The Absolute can be seen as a backdrop to both the Cosmic Logos and individual monads. Yogananda in his commentaries on the Gita, says: "When the devotee, by practice of loving mortals truly, learns to love all beings, and by meditation learns to love God supremely, then and only then is his longing for love satisfied. "Every man who leaves the earth in an embittered state of unrequited love has to come back here until he finds the perfect love of God. When he recognizes the Lord as the only Perfect Lover, his heart seeks no other affection. After many prodigal wanderings the yogi meets the Cosmic Lover in the bower of eternity. Whenever the yogi turns his attention, he sees his Beloved peeping at him through the windows of stars and flowers, through every opening in the atoms and the pores of the sky. The Cosmic Lover similarly beholds the lost-and-found soul of the yogi steadfastly looking at Him. In the ordinary person, God seems to be absent or vanished from the universe. But the yogi sees the ever-watching Eye of God gazing at him through all the windows of space. The face of his Cosmic Beloved is omnipresent." TALK WITH ARJUNA: THE BHAGAVAD GITA Commentaries by Paramhansa Yogananda p. 635 Sutratman From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 13:34:11 1998 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 14:22:08 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Adjuration only Message-ID: <35C4AE50.87D52860@sprynet.com> References: Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > No, I think Jesus was a nut. I think you are confusing Jesus, who either did or did not exist, with the part of a helicopter that holds the rotor in place (aka the "Jesus nut", after the expression the pilot uses when it comes loose). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 13:49:11 1998 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 14:46:46 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <35C4B416.D55651C6@sprynet.com> References: <269cdf37.35c07b37@aol.com> BJack5259@aol.com wrote: > > I have been "off-line" for a while since I went to the National TS convention. > I am trying to catch up on the messages. > Grovert suggested that the "I Am" movement was perhaps an "offshoot" of > Thesophy, and implied that it was not dissimilar to the "neo-Theosophy" of > Besant and Leadbeater. > This is certainly a possibility. However, he would have to admit that > all groups that claim allegiance to the Masters are not, in fact, proven to be > under their direct control and guidance merely because of the making of that > claim. The world of occultism is full of people who make such claims. > "Self-proclaimation" is not proof. The I AM movement is an offshoot of the Alice Bailey movement (C.U.T. is an offshoot of I AM). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 17:19:12 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:11:25 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <318567b3.35c4e40e@aol.com> In a message dated 8/2/98 2:54:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: << The I AM movement is an offshoot of the Alice Bailey movement (C.U.T. is an offshoot of I AM). >> An in-depth article appears in the SCP Newsletter, (Spring-Summer 1998, Vol. 22:4) entitled "End of a False 'Prophet' " by Joseph Szimhart. SCP stands for Spiritual Counterfeits Project, a "cult watchdog" organization. The article says that Guru Ma is suffering from an unspecified neurological disorder and that CUT has jettisoned its bunker mentality and is projecting a new image, that of a church of "Divine Love". Sutratman From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 20:04:16 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:58:45 EDT From: "Brant Jackson" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- bad idea Message-ID: <8a28e487.35c50b46@aol.com> Gentlemen: I hated to put forth the idea of the TS as a modern mystery school, and then not take part in the discussions, but then I have been at Olcott for the convention and summer school, and am just not trying to catch up. Some of the ideas posted against the idea of the TS as a mystery school seem to reflect a lack of knowledge of that institution and its benefit to ancient societies. As I have an interest in such things, older sources such as Leadbeater, GRS Mead, and also many modern books have given much detail on the contribution of the mysteries in the ancient word. In Greece, as in many parts of the ancient world, most intellectually and spiritually-minded citizens were initiates, at least of the lesser mysteries. The mysteries were major pillars of those societies. In short, they taught the Theosophy of their days. What was their worth? I guess that begs the question, if one doesn't believe that the TS is much more than a debating society. Another replied that they never knew anyone in the mystery schools. This, of course, is to be expected. It has been said repeatedly that the oath of secrecy in ancient times was considered so binding that it was rarely broken. Except for some new age initiate-wanna-be's who brag about their high spiritual development and the Masters whom they know personally, don't expect to hear about any real initiations anytime soon. If you read the Diaries of Geoffrey Hodson, published several years ago, he detailed his own experiences with the process of secret spiritual growth and he said that the TS was a mystery school, whose major purpose was to attract worthy candidates, many of whom had taken part in the mysteries in past lives, for education and spiritual growth. The ultimate purpose was for those who demonstrated spiritual development and a desire to be of service to others to be made direct students of the Masters, perhaps as he had been. He also made the point, as had leadbeater before him, that these initiations did not take place on the physical plane, and that absence of ritual and initiation ceremonies by TS members did not denote the absence of such on other planes. A that they didn't believe in the concept of mystery school because they didn't know much about it, From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 20:19:14 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:15:58 EDT From: "Brant Jackson" Subject: Re: TS's as a Spiritual Network -- good idea :-) Message-ID: <879cebc7.35c50f4f@aol.com> Chuck suggested that there would be nothing available in the mystery schools that would not be available to people from other sources. by definition, what is available to people from other sources is exoteric, or public. Did you consider that the mystery schools were intended to convey esoteric, or non-public, secret even, information not available to the public. Is everything that is it is possible to know about the occult and the nature of existence, already available from other sources? Is there nothing left for man to learn about the universe? Is the Secret Doctrine that Last Word on occult matters, and did it give us all we will ever need to know about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going? Do the Masters exist and if not, was HPB a fraud? Do they still work with humans, or have they given up on us as a waste of their time? Pardon the sarcastic questions, but ... Brant Jackson From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 20:49:15 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:39:23 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Adjuration only Message-ID: <9e6b5543.35c514cc@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-02 14:40:12 EDT, you write: > I think you are confusing Jesus, who either did or did not exist, with >the part of a helicopter that holds the rotor in place (aka the "Jesus >nut", after the expression the pilot uses when it comes loose). > > Bart Lidofsky No, I'm referring to the bloody fool who offered such inane babblings as the meek inheriting the earth. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 21:04:13 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:49:16 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- bad idea Message-ID: <583410ea.35c5171d@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-02 21:11:43 EDT, you write: > Some of the ideas posted against the idea of the TS as a mystery school >seem to reflect a lack of knowledge of that institution and its benefit to >ancient societies. As I have an interest in such things, older sources such >as Leadbeater, GRS Mead, and also many modern books have given much detail on >the contribution of the mysteries in the ancient word. In Greece, as in many >parts of the ancient world, most intellectually and spiritually-minded >citizens were initiates, at least of the lesser mysteries. The mysteries >were major pillars of those societies. In short, they taught the Theosophy >of their days. The Theosophy of their days???? Damn they had some real fascinating ideas about brother hood, didn't they back then! The mysteries of ancient times were nothing more than an excuse to get drunk and feel good about it and that is what REAL historians say, not poor deluded fools like Leadbeater and Hodson who operated under the assumption that some illusion floating around on the astral plane was a physical event. But then maybe they confused the ancient mysteries with the religious ceremonies conducted by the Maitreya on Mars. Clairvoyance does that sort of thing at times. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 21:34:19 1998 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 22:27:48 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Adjuration only Message-ID: <35C52024.F93CB977@sprynet.com> References: <9e6b5543.35c514cc@aol.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > No, I'm referring to the bloody fool who offered such inane babblings as the > meek inheriting the earth. Well, SOMEONE has to stay here while the rest of us go to the stars. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 23:04:13 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:47:19 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <007201bdbe91$bcaf91c0$e90b9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Bart wrote: > The I AM movement is an offshoot of the Alice Bailey movement (C.U.T. >is an offshoot of I AM). If you mean with 'offshoot' the idea that an organization was 1) founded by former or actual members of another organization and 2) that its teachings and goals are similar, than C.U.T. would be more properly a second-generation offshoot of the I AM via The Bridge to Freedom organization and the I AM would not be an offshoot of the Alice Bailey movement. Govert From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 23:13:49 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 22:49:07 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <007301bdbe91$be5c5760$e90b9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Sutratman: >An in-depth article appears in the SCP Newsletter, (Spring-Summer >1998, Vol. 22:4) entitled "End of a False 'Prophet' " by Joseph Szimhart. >SCP stands for Spiritual Counterfeits Project, a "cult watchdog" >organization. > >The article says that Guru Ma is suffering from an unspecified >neurological disorder and that CUT has jettisoned its bunker >mentality and is projecting a new image, that of a church of >"Divine Love". That's basically correct. Be careful though with Szimhart. He is a disgruntled ex-member and so-called exit-counselor, the new name for deprogrammer. His writings sound reasonable--though some in a better position to know think he is inaccurate--but his actions are aggressive and because of that has had problems with the law. Govert From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 23:19:12 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:11:06 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <00aa01bdbe94$c08dd600$e90b9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Brant Jackson: >I have been "off-line" for a while since I went to the National TS convention. >I am trying to catch up on the messages. > Grovert suggested that the "I Am" movement was perhaps an "offshoot" of >Theosophy, and implied that it was not dissimilar to the "neo-Theosophy" of >Besant and Leadbeater. Hello, Brant, We talked at the convention and you said my name was familiar to you, but did not remember from what. Now I realize that was because of this list. Maybe next year all on this list should wear a big blue dot on their name tag. At the convention I knew only Bart and Chuck from this list. Anybody else was there? Govert From ???@??? Sun Aug 2 23:49:18 1998 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:39:24 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <00e501bdbe98$b443f1a0$e90b9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> > From "Brant Jackson" > Grovert suggested that the "I Am" movement was perhaps an "offshoot" of >Thesophy, and implied that it was not dissimilar to the "neo-Theosophy" of >Besant and Leadbeater. > This is certainly a possibility. However, he would have to admit that >all groups that claim allegiance to the Masters are not, in fact, proven to be >under their direct control and guidance merely because of the making of that >claim. The world of occultism is full of people who make such claims. >"Self-proclaimation" is not proof. > My point here, too-long belabored, is how do we tell the false teacher >who wraps him or herself in the outward trappings of "legitimate" esoteric >teachings [whatever that may be], and claims to be a "further revelation" of >this line, from the charlatan, who founds his own school with familiar but >false teachings? >From a previous post: Most, if not almost all are bogus claims. I heard that once in the 80s at a Whole Life Expo in Los Angeles there were eight individuals channeling Saint Germain. If something ludicrous as that happens you might be tempted to denounce the whole phenomenon as bogus, which might just be the strategy of the force. Meanwhile, if there is a chance that one of these messengers might be genuine, how to find out? What criteria will be valid to determine whether a messenger is genuine or not? I have referred before to criteria like vibration, transformational effects and content. Another one (or two) has to do with historical criteria: is the content of the messages reflecting a certain awareness of past messengers and movements? And are the statements in harmony with the facts? The other 'historical' criterion I like is: does the alleged messenger and movement fit into a certain logic of historical development. For example I am still amazed by the fact that Guy Ballard was allegedly contacted by Saint Germain one year after K had dissolved the Order of the Star. Coincidence? Or the work of the Masters, implementing a contingency plan? Govert From ???@??? Mon Aug 3 08:49:12 1998 Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:35:57 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <35C5BCBD.531CEB95@sprynet.com> References: <007201bdbe91$bcaf91c0$e90b9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Govert W. Schüller wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > > The I AM movement is an offshoot of the Alice Bailey movement > (C.U.T. > >is an offshoot of I AM). > > If you mean with 'offshoot' the idea that an organization was 1) > founded by former or actual members of another organization and > 2) that its teachings and goals are similar, than C.U.T. would be > more properly a second-generation offshoot of the I AM via The > Bridge to Freedom organization and the I AM would not be an > offshoot of the Alice Bailey movement. You are correct; I was confusing the popularity of the concept of Saint Germain as a Mahatma among the A.S. people with anscestry of I AM. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Mon Aug 3 10:04:12 1998 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:03:14 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adjuration only Message-ID: In a message dated 8/2/98 9:55:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: << No, I'm referring to the bloody fool who offered such inane babblings as the meek inheriting the earth. >> Gandhi didn't do so bad in ridding India of a foreign power through non-violence. I'd follow such a fool anyday. Sutratman From ???@??? Mon Aug 3 17:34:11 1998 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:23:47 EDT From: "Christine Hanson" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #343 Message-ID: In a message dated 8/3/98 9:05:45 AM, you wrote: <> I would also add the criteria that the messenger shouldn't be too avaricious (e.g., "It is better to give than to receive, so give your money to me"), and the messenger shouldn't demand blind obedience. From ???@??? Mon Aug 3 18:19:11 1998 Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 19:52:07 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Absolute & Personality Message-ID: Sutratman writes in #343: >If we identify the Cosmic Logos as Sat-Chit-Ananda, then >I feel >we can talk of God in personal terms, for we too, have >existence, >consciousness and the capacity for bliss though not in >the absolute sense (like God).  The Absolute can be >seen as >a backdrop to both the Cosmic Logos and individual >monads. ----------------------------------------------------------- Have you really stopped and thought just what a pathetic and tiny thing the "Personal" is? The Personal is having desires and aims with oneself as the chief beneficiary and focus - the rest of the universe is not a concern at all. Is this the qualities of a a god or Logos? INDIVIDUALITY is a different thing than personality. Of necessity, the individualities of any beings superior to us humans do not have any Personal concerns, their concerns or motivation is being in perfect harmony in their actions with the rest of existence and its direction (plus whatever other concerns we can't imagine!) - no Selfish or Personal motivations. Some humans escape the Personal, let alone gods. Why would we identify the "Cosmic Logos" with Sat-chit-ananda? Which Logos are you refering to? Blavatsky gives 3. MYSTERY SCHOOLS - IMHO to have the basis for a Mystery School, you have to have one thing - someone who is "enlightened" or "Initiated" in the sense that they have went through a particular level of mystic experience - they have become self-conscious in their human/manas part of their own human monad. This is the "death on the cross" in the Jesus myth, which is the death of the personal ego. It's serious and dangerous stuff. Its good to remember that all the 70 some who tried for chelahood except one (Damodar) were big wopping failures with ruined lives. Grace Knoche wrote a booklet on Mystery Schools which was available on the net somewhere... (I haven't read it yet...) BRANT: If I were you, I'd go out and buy all Blavatsky's writings (and Purucker and Judge) and find out what is in them on Mystery Schools. Personally, I wouldn't trust CWL, Hodson or any in the Neo-Theosophical school - but that is your business. - Jake J. From ???@??? Tue Aug 4 10:49:12 1998 Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 08:51:08 PDT From: "Ausar Allah" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #343 Message-ID: <19980804155109.19673.qmail@hotmail.com> the 'messenger' should not be one that one follows but he/she should be the one who enlightens and puts one on the right path >In a message dated 8/3/98 9:05:45 AM, you wrote: > ><messengers >might be genuine, how to find out?>> > >I would also add the criteria that the messenger shouldn't be too avaricious >(e.g., "It is better to give than to receive, so give your money to me"), and >the messenger shouldn't demand blind obedience. > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Tue Aug 4 11:12:05 1998 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:01:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #344 Message-Id: <199808041601.MAA07109@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808041400.JAA27689@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 4, 98 09:00:07 am According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com: Jake wrote: > > - ----------------------------------------------------------- > Have you really stopped and thought just what a > pathetic and tiny thing the "Personal" is? The Personal is > having desires and aims with oneself as the chief > beneficiary and focus - the rest of the universe is not a > concern at all. This seems to polarize and exaggerate. All the love, respect, honor, service, etc. that we are capable of is rooted in the personal. Every concern we can show for the rest of the universe is personal. To the extent that impersonal love is a reality, we can grasp it through the experience of personal love. I am speaking in terms of individual psychological development. Is this the qualities of a a god or Logos? > INDIVIDUALITY is a different thing than personality. Of > necessity, the individualities of any beings superior to us > humans do not have any Personal concerns, Why is that necessary? their > concerns or motivation is being in perfect harmony in their > actions with the rest of existence and its direction (plus > whatever other concerns we can't imagine!) - no Selfish or > Personal motivations. This seems dogmatic. Maybe the selfish and personal motivations are subordinated to higher ones. But eating, sleeping, and some other things are all "selfish and personal" yet necessary for embodiment. snip > personal ego. It's serious and dangerous stuff. Its good > to remember that all the 70 some who tried for chelahood > except one (Damodar) were big wopping failures with > ruined lives. There are many assumptions built into this statement. Many theosophists would object that Judge, or Olcott, or Hartmann, etc. etc. were not big failures with ruined lives. But even granting that assumption, the next one is more disputable. That is that the conditions of chelaship *per se* are dangerous, likely to lead to ruined lives in 69/70 cases, and that the circumstances of HPB's Theosophical recruits are simple illustrations of this universal truth. On the other hand, I'd say that the circumstances in which the various chelas of the 1880s Theosophy found themselves were *particularly* inauspicious and likely to lead to frustration and discouragement. Lots of secrecy, multiple versions of the truth floating around, a volatile cast of international characters... recipe for disaster. Cheers, PJ From ???@??? Tue Aug 4 11:49:12 1998 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 17:49:25 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Wolves in sheep's clothing. Message-ID: <000001bdbfc7$d6992600$9c8bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: There may be many who have embarked, or who are considering embarking, on the paper-chase in the West for 'Adepts', 'Teachers' and other self-styled guru's. The following is an extract from "DOOMED!", c/o Collected Writings Vol IV, "The Theosophist", Vol III, No 6, Supplement, March 1882, pp 3-5:- "A real adept will either conceal forever his adeptship from the world's gaze, or, if forced to live among the common herd, will prove far above it, by his moral grandeur, the loftiness of his cultivated mind, his divine charity and his all-forgiveness of injury. He will correct the faults of those who strive - as he himself has once striven - after initiation, with polite kindness, not by using Billingsgate language. A *true* adept is *above* any petty feeling of personal resentment - least of all of ridiculous vanity. He cares not whether he is physically handsome or plain, but ever shows the moral beauty of his spotless nature in every act of life. Finally we say, it is not enough to be a learned Kabbalist, a successful mesmerizer, a great alchemist or even a commentator upon Occult Science - what one would call a "theoretical" occultist - to deserve the name of an *Adept* in the real sense of that word*. Though we have never claimed ourselves *Adeptship* or a "very high degree of Initiation," yet we claim to know something of real Adepts and Initiates, and are pretty certain of what they look like - the whole host of English Occultists notwithstanding. And we maintain that, at the present moment, and ever since the spring of 1881, there is no more in the membership of the Theosophical Societies, than among the whole conclave of "secret societies" of English and other Occultists - Mr. Barnes Austin speaks about - one single Adept, let alone "an advanced Initiate into the highest degrees." The true mysteries of the genuine Aryan and Chaldean lore, are receding with every day more from the Western Candidates. There are yet in Europe and America some advanced students, some neophytes of the third and perchance of the second Section, and a few "natural-born seers." But like a gallant ship sinking under the weight of barnacles attached to it, even they lose ground daily, owing to the indescretions of hundreds of self-deluded parasites, who would have people believe each of them brings to humanity a new Revelation from heaven! It is the adherents of the "adepts" of this latter class, who believe in and unwisely defend them, but who, deluding themselves, but delude others, who thus create all the mischief. And these, we say, are but an impediment to the progress of THE Science. They only *prevent the few true adepts, that remain, to come out and publicly assert the survival of the ancient knowledge and - their own existence*". Best wishes, Paul. From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 08:49:13 1998 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 10:13:54 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Probabilities Message-ID: Jerry Scheuler quotes and writes in #262 (June 29): >>        Yes, I've published "Theosophy Vs. >>Neo-Theosophy" by Margaret >> Thomas.  It is 178 pages, paperback, with 60 page >>appendix.  The price >>is $7.00 plus $1.50 book rate post US.   Make Check >>payable to M.R. >> Jaqua, POB 444, Grand Rapids, Ohio 43522 USA     >>This edition of the >> Thomas book is from Victor Endersby's "Theosophical >>Notes."   In the >> appendix is included an article critical of CWL which >>appeared only in >> the 1st edition of Avalon's "The Serpent Power." >>(courtesy of R. >> Robb)   I print and bind these myself.  The first one I did >>in 1990 >> was an aesthetic monstrosity.  This one is not too bad. >>                                     -  Jake Jaqua >Thanks for the info. I will purchase a copy. I happen to >have The Serpent Power and pretty much agree with the >criticism. >Jerry S. ------------------------------ After reading Jerry's article in TW #26 on Synchronicity and "Probabilities" I understand this unmaterialized order now. The certainty of the order was actually just a "Probability" which did not manifest! Likely this rule of Probability can be applied to Ethics also, and whether B.S. is really B.S. or not. - Jake J. From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 09:04:16 1998 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 06:55:37 PDT From: "David Green" Subject: Mrs Blavatsky & chelaship Message-ID: <19980805135537.2429.qmail@hotmail.com> >From: "K Paul Johnson" snip snip snip >There are many assumptions built into this statement. Many >theosophists would object that Judge, or Olcott, or Hartmann, >etc. etc. were not big failures with ruined lives. But even >granting that assumption, the next one is more disputable. That >is that the conditions of chelaship *per se* are dangerous, >likely to lead to ruined lives in 69/70 cases, and that the >circumstances of HPB's Theosophical recruits are simple >illustrations of this universal truth. On the other hand, I'd >say that the circumstances in which the various chelas of the >1880s Theosophy found themselves were *particularly* inauspicious >and likely to lead to frustration and discouragement. Lots of >secrecy, multiple versions of the truth floating around, a >volatile cast of international characters... recipe for disaster. P Johnson----- Many assumptions are also built into your statements & many of those are also disputable. I've just finished D Pratt's essay reviewing your book. Pratt indicated how disputable your statements are concerning Mrs Blavatsky. D Green ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 10:19:14 1998 Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:21:30 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #344 Message-ID: In a message dated 8/4/98 12:16:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, pjohnson@vsla.edu writes: << This seems to polarize and exaggerate. All the love, respect, honor, service, etc. that we are capable of is rooted in the personal. Every concern we can show for the rest of the universe is personal. To the extent that impersonal love is a reality, we can grasp it through the experience of personal love. I am speaking in terms of individual psychological development. >> Good observation. Sutratman From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 10:34:26 1998 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 08:23:58 PDT From: "David Green" Subject: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <19980805152358.12891.qmail@hotmail.com> Jake Jaqua wrote----- > >>>        Yes, I've published "Theosophy Vs. >>>Neo-Theosophy" by Margaret >>> Thomas.  It is 178 pages, paperback, with 60 page >>>appendix.  The price >>>is $7.00 plus $1.50 book rate post US.   Make Check >>>payable to M.R. >>> Jaqua, POB 444, Grand Rapids, Ohio 43522 USA     >>>This edition of the >>> Thomas book is from Victor Endersby's "Theosophical >>>Notes."   In the >>> appendix is included an article critical of CWL which >>>appeared only in >>> the 1st edition of Avalon's "The Serpent Power." >>>(courtesy of R. >>> Robb)   Govert----- Read Thomas' book. I've studied "Theosophy vs Neo-Theosophy" & discussed it with C Leadbeater students. If you believe Leadbeater's teachings, then you don't understand Mrs Blavatsky's books. In dozen of cases, C Leadbeater contradicted Mrs Blavatsky. In many instances Leadbeater reads like comic book fantasy. Recently I've also read Ballards $ Prophet. Leadbeater is sane in comparison with nonsense from these latter day prophets. Obtain Thomas book & do some rational thinking. D Green ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 12:18:17 1998 Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:16:19 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #344 Message-ID: <000101bdc094$c3170340$3c8bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199808041601.MAA07109@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> PJ wrote: > According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com: > Jake wrote: > > > > - ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Have you really stopped and thought just what a > > pathetic and tiny thing the "Personal" is? The Personal is > > having desires and aims with oneself as the chief > > beneficiary and focus - the rest of the universe is not a > > concern at all. > > This seems to polarize and exaggerate. All the love, respect, > honor, service, etc. that we are capable of is rooted in the > personal. That efflorescence of personality which is pure and ennobling may, if cemented to Buddhi, claim a stake to 'immortality'. The personality receives the en-lightening element from above (Atma-Buddhi) via the *higher* Manas. It seems the higher qualities are rooted in the personal by virtue of impersonal motive/thought, not through any inherent virtue of the personality itself (the latter being merely a tool). This said, it seems a bit of "Catch 22" situation. Individuality needs Quaternary in order to 'earth' itself in the proverbial mud of ex-istence. No mud, no growth. > > personal ego. It's serious and dangerous stuff. Its good > > to remember that all the 70 some who tried for chelahood > > except one (Damodar) were big wopping failures with > > ruined lives. > > There are many assumptions built into this statement. Many > theosophists would object that Judge, or Olcott, or Hartmann, > etc. etc. were not big failures with ruined lives. But even > granting that assumption, the next one is more disputable. That > is that the conditions of chelaship *per se* are dangerous, > likely to lead to ruined lives in 69/70 cases, and that the > circumstances of HPB's Theosophical recruits are simple > illustrations of this universal truth. On the other hand, I'd > say that the circumstances in which the various chelas of the > 1880s Theosophy found themselves were *particularly* inauspicious > and likely to lead to frustration and discouragement. Lots of > secrecy, multiple versions of the truth floating around, a > volatile cast of international characters... recipe for disaster. Failure and success are, per se, relative terms. We "fail" in one life only to (hopefully) "succeed" in another. Nevertheless, the dangers of failed Chelaship are very real and doubtless entail karmic consequences extending over many lives. Such consequences are likely to be considerably more far-reaching than your average Joe and Janet Public. The process of chelaship involves fanning latent 'seeds' - good, bad and indifferent - into active fruition. Selfish motive can bare but evil fruit and chelas seeking *personal* advantage, powers and/or forcing the eye of the Master . . . are all but bound to fail. Best wishes, Paul. From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 14:05:00 1998 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:32:28 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Personal level Message-ID: Paul J. writes in #345: >.  All the love, respect, >honor, service, etc. that we are capable of is rooted in >the >personal.  Every concern we can show for the rest of the >universe >is personal.  To the extent that impersonal love is a >reality, we >can grasp it through the experience of personal love.  I >am >speaking in terms of individual psychological >development. _________________________ IMHO you have this idea upside down. The personal is able to "love" because of the undercurrent of impersonal love and harmony in the universe that exists. Mystics claim to experience Impersonal Love (an aspect of the Buddhi Principle.) Personal love is always polar, and its flip side comes up sooner or later. "Individualities higher than us don't have personality" - meaning Dhyan Chohans, gods because personality is a function of our lower state of consciousness. IMHO It Is Not Possible on their superior level of perception/consciousness. ___________________________- >Many theosophists would object that Judge, or Olcott, or >Hartmann, etc. etc. were not big failures with ruined >lives.  But even granting that assumption, the next one is >more disputable.  That >is that the conditions of chelaship *per se* are >dangerous, >likely to lead to ruined lives in 69/70 cases, and that the >circumstances of HPB's Theosophical recruits are simple >illustrations of this universal truth.  On the other hand, I'd >say that the circumstances in which the various chelas of >the >1880s Theosophy found themselves were *particularly* >inauspicious >and likely to lead to frustration and discouragement.  Lots >of >secrecy, multiple versions of the truth floating around, a >volatile cast of international characters... recipe for >disaster. >Cheers, >PJ ____________________________ The comments about failures is from one of HPB's articles - I think "Chelas and Lay Chelas." I think Judge was a success, and Olcott wasn't a total failure surely, and Hartmann got a lot of great work done too. I think you are naive about the real tests of chela-probation. To be successful, as I understand it, EVERY aspect of one's personal psychology has to be mastered and under control. Celibacy (no conscious sex-action of any kind) is a simple part of it compared to more subtle moral evils to overcome. Being able to make it through the difficulties of those times would just be another part of the natural test one put oneself under. IMHO there isn't one person in a million optimistically who could survive a real probation and maintain their status (which is a test by the Higher Self, actually.) (I'm not one of them!) We'd probably have to agree to disagree on this, I suppose. There's a large group of various types of sincere mystics and occultists who aren't up to chela-level. BAZZER/PAUL: Great quote! - Jake J. From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 14:19:14 1998 Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:05:27 EDT From: "Christine Hanson" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #345 Message-ID: <24e9234c.35c8ad08@aol.com> HPB wrote (as quoted by Paul): <> History repeats itself! Can you say "televangelist"?! Christine Hanson From ???@??? Wed Aug 5 14:59:54 1998 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 12:51:36 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: August Issue of THE HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST Message-Id: <199808051950.OAA03317@proteus.imagiware.com> I'm posting this announcement for Dick Slusser, Editor of THE HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST. The August 1998 issue is online and available at: ftp://theosophy.com/pub/theosophy/hct/hct9808.pdf HCT files carry the extension .PDF (Portable Document File) readable with the Adobe Acrobat reader. It is available free at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html. The www homepage is: http://theosophy.com/hct.html -- Eldon Tucker From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 12:14:20 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:06:56 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <003401bdc15c$a2e1c920$5a0a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> >Govert----- > >Read Thomas' book. I've >studied "Theosophy vs >Neo-Theosophy" & discussed it with >C Leadbeater students I'll do. Meanwhile stay tuned for some 'insanity' from me to be posted soon on this list. Govert From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 12:29:27 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:18:42 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #345 Message-ID: <004801bdc15e$4628af80$5a0a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> > >HPB wrote (as quoted by Paul): > ><indiscretions of hundreds of self-deluded parasites, who would have people >believe each of them brings to humanity a new Revelation from heaven! It is >the adherents of the "adepts" of this latter class, who believe in and >unwisely defend them, but who, deluding themselves, but delude others, who >thus create all the mischief.>> Fortunately there are exceptions. Govert From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 15:44:09 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:33:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Chelas Message-Id: <199808062033.QAA02536@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808061400.JAA10232@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 6, 98 09:00:08 am In response to several comments on my remarks about the deck being stacked against the Theosophical chelas of the 1880s: to David Green--- Given the nature of the evidence, every book trying to offer an interpretation of HPB is "disputable" which is why new ones keep coming out. To say that mine are disputable is only to assert that they are like all the rest. What some Theosophists choose *not* to dispute, what they choose *to* dispute, and especially the tone in which they do so, says more about them than about the books in question. You have not responded to the allegedly disputable assumptions behind my comments, just expressed disrespect for me as a "disputable" author. To Paul Bazzer: I suspect that thinking of the personality as "below" and the individuality as "above" is dangerous. It takes a convenient metaphor and turns it into a hierarchy of value. I prefer to think of the personality as the exterior, the individuality as interior. Agree with the gist of your comments. To Jake: each of us thinks the other "has it upside down." If someone hasn't experienced personal love, s/he cannot be a purveyor of universal love. If we don't have a healthy personality due to childhood experience of giving and receiving love, we have to heal our aching hearts before we can proceed to the third eye, IMO and Cayce's. I see your point, and guess this is a chicken-and-egg kind of thing. But my focus was on the individual, yours on the cosmos. Yes, there has to be some universal love essence thingie in the cosmos before there can be personal love in individuals. But individuals have to experience personal love to get in touch with the universal. As for naivete, again, each sees the other as naive. I think you naively accept the specific formulations about chelaship in the Theosophical literature as giving some kind of timeless essential truth about spiritual progress being extremely painful and difficult. The specific historical context of those particular chelas made it painful and difficult. In earlier times chelaship was something much more natural; and in our time I don't think the essence of spiritual enlightenment and liberation is nearly as hard to perceive as it was in the late 19th century. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 16:58:58 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 17:56:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Finding a guru Message-Id: <199808062156.RAA12048@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> To further elaborate on the uniqueness of the Blavatskian model of chelaship, I think the most important thing to remember is that the guru/chela relationship had always been understood to be one between people who knew one another in the normal social sense, people whose relative positions were clearly defined by social norms. A person found a guru by going to the wise man everyone in the village recognized as a guru, and learned what that person had to teach, and that was that. Or he (very rarely she, alas) went to the monastery or temple or whatever, and studied under someone whose status was official and recognized. "Guru/chela" was a socially constructed relationship with a long cultural history. There were at HPB's time many thousands, perhaps millions, of Indians participating in traditional guru/chela relationships. But HPB shows not much respect for these relationships, saying that the *real* gurus are now inaccessible due to various causes like the spiritual degradation of British colonialism, etc. In short she takes an *abundant* cultural resource and redefines it in terms of extreme scarcity and inaccessibility-- while positioning herself in the catbird seat as the only intermediary between the remote authorities and their aspiring chelas. (Is that just a Southern expression? I've never known why catbirds were seen as specially privileged in seating arrangements.) When HPB becomes the go-between for aspiring chelas of *her* particular gurus, a whole different set of circumstances is found. The identities of the gurus are secret, access to them is tightly controlled and under mysterious circumstances (i.e. the astral post office), there are no clearcut social norms defining mutual obligations and roles, in short very little of the relationship between Sinnett and K.H., for example, corresponds to any historical precedent of guru/chela relations. It is only to be expected that such a relationship, wrenched out of every traditional context, was unworkable in virtually every case in which it was tried. Therefore, it makes more sense to me to say that HPB was a failure in translating the guru/chela model into 1880s Theosophical context than to say that all those chelas were failures. Rather like having people ride horses down the interstate and blaming the riders when they get hit by cars. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 21:29:02 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 22:22:27 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Finding a guru Message-ID: <9a182d04.35ca64e5@aol.com> In a message dated 8/6/98 6:03:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, pjohnson@vsla.edu writes: << HPB shows not much respect for these relationships, saying that the real* gurus are now inaccessible due to various causes >> Even now the word "guru" in many theosophical lodges is ridiculed and lampooned, the real "guru" being, we are solemnly told, the Higher Self (if one can access it). What these theosophical pundits neglect to say is that a flesh-and-blood guru can often help us to do that very thing. Namaste Sutratman From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 23:29:02 1998 Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:19:43 PDT From: "David Green" Subject: El Morya? Message-ID: <19980807041943.22638.qmail@hotmail.com> On Govert's website, one bibliographic reference reads---- Barker, A.T., compiler. The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972. Occult explanations and instructions from El Morya and Koot Hoomi to their pupil A.P. Sinnett written in the early 1880s. ------------------------------- El Morya? Govert, where do you find the name "El Morya" in this volume of letters? What page? Master Morya is only called by this "El" name in later pseudo-theosophical writings. Readers beware! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Thu Aug 6 23:58:00 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:43:38 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: A Pearl of Wisdom Message-ID: <000c01bdc1be$4755e340$340a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Dear friends, On 7/22 Jake Jaqua posted a review of "Kuthumi on Selfhood" (Malibu: Summit University Press, 1969). I like to respond in two ways. First by giving a reaction to the review, and secondly by posting one of the messages from the book so you can decide for yourself if the review is fair or not. This is the message: >From "Kuthumi on Selfhood," pp.177-180, from the series "Pearls of Wisdom," Vol. 12 No. 41 Vaivasvata Manu - October 12, 1969 The Hierarchical Principle of a Chaste Intent, the Law of the Wheel within the Wheel, and the Cutting Edge of the Sword of the Spirit To All Who Would Understand and Serve the Intent of Hierarchy: Most of the seething unrest that permeates the atmosphere of the planet today is a manifestation of that human selfishness which seeks to manipulate men. This type of control works through cleverness of wit and sophistication that always takes into account man's susceptibility to pride and what is referred to as “snob appeal.” People are being forced by their own vanities and emotions into the position of being manipulated, and they have allowed themselves to become puppets of their own limited imaginations. The Great White Brotherhood is currently seeking effective means of bridging the chasm between popular opinion and the progressive instruction which the masters seek to convey to mankind. Thus it is our hope to restore a climate of spiritual receptivity that may be accelerated into a golden-age understanding that will promote peace and harmony upon earth. The hungers in the hearts of men for spiritual bread gnaw at their serenity and often drive them to commit acts of which they are later ashamed. Humanity's destructive momentums of self-condemnation are often shifted to a collective scapegoat or to an individual who becomes the target of the personal malice of millions. The solutions to mankind's present problems are not apparent to those who are embroiled in them. These problems are compounded on the one hand by an extreme narrow-mindedness, and on the other by a fanatical liberalism. To have what we may term a hard core of knowledgeable disciples upon the planet, who are devoted to enlightened humanistic interests, does not guarantee that the remainder of the population will adopt the correct attitudes which will bring about improved conditions in human relations. We must be able to use those in different states of spiritual awareness, according to their highest capacities, who will act as mediators in the world of form. These must act neither on the basis of fear nor on that of misguided love, but on the hierarchical principle of a chaste intent. This is the intent whose only goal is the enlightenment of humanity and the creation of a broad spectrum of tolerances that will not be found so far afield of true freedom as to give no voice to the discrimination of the Christ mind. Naturally, we are interested in all people. And we are interested in establishing a rapport between differing modes of spiritual thought that will bring about a long overdue synthesis of understanding, including a codification of religious terminologies with a view to making what we may term “the occult” more easily assimilable by an evolving humanity. It is unfortunate that through the years many have been used to complicate the structure of the teachings which we have sought to build as a bridge of comprehension over which a bewildered and seeking humanity might pass. One of the messages that we must get across, with the help of our disciples, is the practicality of the councils of the Great White Brotherhood. The most complex problems are seen through our eyes as resolvable through reasonability, affability, and mankind's own willingness to implement the solutions we offer. Therefore, in the final hours of this year, we enlist the aid of the students in spreading abroad the good news of the higher teachings of Christ to all who will give ear to the voice of God that still speaks in the wilderness of humanity's consciousness, saying: “Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” We cannot condone the actions of those who thrive upon the poison of malicious gossip, nor do we hold guiltless those who spread lies about others. If those who consider themselves to be among the vanguard of the spiritual forces of the world are to remain effectively aligned with the hierarchy in their outer service, they must hold to the cardinal principles of virtue in their dealings with one another. At the same time, they must exhibit internally an attitude of compassionate comprehension toward those whose zeal at the beginning of the Path causes them to feel, albeit sometimes rashly, that they are more efficient standard-bearers than those who have for many years been continuously engaged in a form of service to humanity. It is not necessary for a student on the Path to judge the merit of another disciple or of another movement in order to be effective in his own particular calling. We of the hierarchy are not so much concerned that people work together in the same avenue of expression as we are that they learn to concentrate their energies and their attention on the purification of their individual worlds and whatever avenue they have chosen as an outlet for their expression of the Christ. Only when individual man has resolved his personal problems by improving his attitude toward his fellowmen can he become an effective mediator in the arena of world action where he will encounter many schools of thought. The time has come for visionaries to understand that it is not necessary for them to build a house in which all of the people of the world can live. These must understand what we have termed the Law of the Wheel within the Wheel. EN2 This law has to do with the interchange of the microcosm and the Macrocosm, and it reveals that all manifestation must be patterned “as above, so below.” Pur et simple this means that any endeavor, regardless of its size, can manifest the same cardinal virtue of sincerity which the Brotherhood advocates; for all who would embrace the truth can learn to outpicture within their own field of service an aspect of the design of the universal temple. Millions can drink from one spring if the water be pure; for there joy is conveyed, and this is the purpose of our Brotherhood. Men and women do not need to be joined together as an incongruous pile of lumber haphazardly nailed together. But they do need the essential spiritual conveyances of service and of technique which bring peace to the heart and expand their knowledge of the mysteries of the Christ. Working with the central purposes of hierarchy, they will then draw forth the necessary harmonizing factors that will make all life one. On the other hand, attempts to integrate religious groups and ideas often bring about a segregation of both, as people, through encounter, may become less tolerant of one another and less inclined to accept one another's concepts and goals. Evolution, in a spiritual sense, comes either gradually or suddenly to men; and it is difficult for those in either category to appreciate the progress of those in the other. How wise was he who said, “With all thy getting get understanding.” The business of educating humanity along the spiritual path is a great necessity at the present hour; therefore, we are most concerned with the cutting edge of the sword of the Spirit that is held in the hand of the devotee, for it is the correct implementation of the Word, referred to in the Scriptures as the “sword of the Spirit,” that is all important to the evolving soul. Whether you fight under one flag or another, as long as you are true to yourself and to the activation of the power of faith within your heart, as long as you are unfolding the principles of higher wisdom and removing the impediments of dogmatic interpretation that have prevented your acceptance of truth through the years, as long as you are amplifying a selfless love that recognizes what is real in the scientific manifestation of being, you are a part of our vanguard. We want you to feel, each and every one of you, that the need for individual spiritual unfoldment is paramount. Then we want you to see the value of collective associations and examinations of truth that follow the theme of the hour which must ever be acknowledged as Christly discrimination. Many rash deeds are done in the name of altruism whereas, if a little foresight had been exercised, much pain would have been spared to the self and to others. Our concerns, then, lie in the forward movement of mankind in a service that is guided by the wholeness of cosmic reasonability and justice and in a purity that is free from personal pride, a purity that adheres with maximum effort to the principles of honesty for which there are no substitutes. As it has been said, “God give us the freedom to do the right as we see it.” May we, then, call forth in all of you the blessing of freedom to see with the eyes of the Spirit the vision of one man transposed to become one world. For only through the life patterns of the Masters of Wisdom, only through living in keeping with the pure truth of being will man and what he does become permanent. He will not have to backtrack or to recycle old errors, for he will have transcended the world and all that's in it. Press on. Keep on keeping on. Only victory lies ahead! For the hierarchy, I remain graciously Vaivasvata Manu ____________________________________________________ 1. Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:3. 2. Ezek. 1:16. 3. Prov. 4:7. 4. Eph. 6:17. From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 00:15:44 1998 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:53:51 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: response to review Message-ID: <000f01bdc1bf$60652e80$340a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Dear friends, On 7/22 Jake Jaqua posted a review of "Kuthumi on Selfhood" (Malibu: Summit University Press, 1969). I like to respond in two ways. First by giving a reaction to the review itself, and secondly by posting one of the messages from the book. Although Jake has stated that he is not interested in discussing these issues--which is fine with me--I will post this anyway, because I feel I have to respond to his review. Following is the review with comments: >Clare Prophet's "Kuthumi on Selfhood" > > "Kuthumi on Selfhood" is a recent re-release under new title of >Elizabeth Clare Prophet's 1969 volume 12 of her "Pearls of Wisdom" >series. It is a series of short essays supposedly channeled from the >adepts behind the founding of the Theosophical Society, Mory and Koot >Hoomi (and a host of others from "Archangel Michael" to Gautama Buddha) >which are bound together in one volume. Anybody can have a subscription to these Pearls of Wisdom. They are published somewhat irregular, but every volume, which covers a whole calendar year, has between 45 and 60 issues. For many years now the rate has been $ 40 per year. Most issues are dicatations by different Masters, Archangels and Cosmic Beings, and are mostly given during one of the four quarterly conferences of C.U.T., which are open to the public. > First of all, any serious student of Theosophy realizes that Clare >Prophet's "Morya and Kuthumi" are not the REAL Morya and Koot Hoomi >since these two adepts did not believe in the practice of mediumship. Dictations are quite different from mediumship, which opens the possibility that they are the REAL ones. >The impersonation of adepts by astral entities is no uncommon thing as >can be seen by Koot Hoomi's own words on page 419 and other places in >"The Mahatma Letters." Agree. At a Whole Life Expo in Los Angeles a few years ago not less than eight persons were channeling Saint Germain. > While "The Mahatma Letters" (the production of the REAL Koot Hoomi >and Morya) is solid philosophy throughout and obviously the production >of great minds, whether the critic be theosophist or not, the Contents >of Prophet's "Kuthumi on Selfhood" is nearly entirely pollyannic >gibberish, with undefined terms piled helter-skelter upon each other >from every area of religion and occultism in such an irrational fashion >as to make anyone attempting to find even a focal point as a basis for >critique to throw his hands up in anguished despair. Great polemical sentence and probably true for the reviewer's point of view. I had similar experiences reading my first book 'Dossier on the Ascension' by Serapis Bey. I could read Kant, Krishnamurti, HPB, Steiner and still decipher what they were saying. Even Heidegger I could crack open. But the Pearls of Wisdom were quite different. Very frustrating experience. I don't know what made me understand them at a certain moment. Discussions with other students, prolonged exposure to the writings, deciphering its particular vocabulary, illumination from within, Gnostic breakthrough? Anyway I will post an accessible part or a whole Pearl of that volume on this site and let you decide. Once again, as the >case in most all channeling, the discourses are an appeal to the >emotions with only the barest necessary trace of rhyme, reason and >system. After a while I found the rhyme and reason and discovered that indeed they appeal to the emotions, though I rather describe it as 'evocation of higher spiritual feelings, with subtle intellectual Content.' >One wonders how with any sense of conscience Clare Prophet can for >the last 30 years present her channelings as from the same Morya and >Koot Hoomi behind the original Theosophical Society and responsible for >most of Founder Blavatsky's erudite writings. How could one suppose >such a drastic degeneration in style and complete about-face on >philosophic matters could come from the same men? >From a philosophical point these teachings can be a bit disappointing. Nevertheless I believe with Anrias that the intellectual content of the SD was too high for the average western student to be beneficial. One of the reasons being that the life-style most conducive to obtain a beneficial understanding of the SD could hardly be maintained in the frantic west. For this reason the Masters turned more to other practices, like group rituals, to effect the changes in Their students They first tried to accomplish by releasing the SD. In this view it is not so much the content of the SD which counts but more its transformative effects. I just read that Steiner had a similar view of the philosophy of Hegel and Fichte. They were kind of Gnostic philosophers, not because they philosophied about Gnostic doctrines--though in another sense that might be true--but more because by reading them a Gnostic experience could be effected. The word "God" is >used approximately half a dozen times on each page of Prophet's work, >while in "The Mahatma Letters" K.H. and M. would not use this term at >all without qualification because of the terms connotation of the >Christian *Personal* Diety. If you would study these teachings more in depth you will find many qualifications of the term God. As I understand it God is not to be equated with the Absolute, which is his 'background,' and God is both personal and impersonal, and many variations in between. >While it is stated repeatedly in the >adept-produced writings that it is hoped the Theosophical Movement will >avoid any sort of "churchism," Clare Prophet's "masters" have instructed >her to do this very thing with her "Church Universal and Triumphant" >complete with bishops, et. al. Well, They made an exception for their Tibetan temples, and later on also for the LCC and now for C.U.T. >"Morya" is even made to give a wonderful >Christmas sermon at one point and vicarious atonement is promulgated at >others - something that is the complete antithesis of Theosophical >Teachings. Morya's letter is indeed wonderful. The Masters do not teach the doctrine of vicarious atonement. The exoteric doctrine that Jesus died for our sins and thus liberated us from our negative karma is incorrect. Our esoteric understanding is that Jesus, because of his spiritual attainment and his office as Lord of the Piscean Age, temporarily carried the bulk of humanity's karma so we could more easily grow spiritually and be better prepared when this karma would come due during the transition to a new age, which is happening now. >"Jesus Christ" delivers a message also, and in the adept's >earlier Theosophical teachings Christ was held to be an Avatar - a >being created by white magic which ceases to exist forever after >physical death - one wonders what he is still doing around. We teach, as did CWL, that Jesus and Christ were two different beings. Jesus, under tutelage of the Masters, prepared his body and mind to be overshadowed by the World Teacher and representative of the Cosmic Christ Lord Maitreya. The same was intended with Krishnamurti about 2000 years later. >Did Clare >Prophet's "adepts" change their philosophy from early Theosophical days, >or does she merely ignore the above discrepancies and the thousand other >paradoxes between her "new" adepts and the old, genuine adepts - who >were not "ascended masters" at all (whatever this may be) but real >living men. Discrepancies can indeed be problematic. So far I found some discrepancies solved by deeper study, or I chose one side or the other--both not being infallible--or I just have to suspend judgment. As far as the grander ideas and principles concerned I do not see discrepancies, but mutual reinforcement and, as an effect on me, a deepening of understanding. More problematic for me are the discrepancies between theosophy and Krishnamurti's teachings. Meanwhile, that is since They were instrumental in founding the TS, the two Masters involved made Their ascension at the turn of the century and were later joined by Djwal Kul. They are still living men, but without a physical body, though They could materialize one if so desired. Concerning this issue I wrote in my pamphlet "The Masters and Their Emissaries:From H.P.B. to Guru Ma" (at http://pages.prodigy.net/schuller/story.htm ): "Both Masters [M. and K.H.] took their fifth initiation, the Ascension, at the close of the last century, thereby becoming incorporeal Ascended Masters. And as Blavatsky has written--referring to other saints, that, when “unburthened of their terrestrial tabernacles, their freed souls, henceforth united forever with their spirits, rejoin the whole shining host, which is bound together in one spiritual solidarity of thought and deed, and called the ‘anointed,’ ”--the same glad tidings could be told, not only about these two illustrious Masters, but also about many other brave souls who followed them. [H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled (Pasadena CA: Theosophical University Press, 1976), II, p. 159]. For practical purposes the difference between an Unascended Master and an Ascended one is not very great. Both can work in the physical as well as in the spiritual realm and both have a wide array of occult powers at their command to guide Their pupils and help mankind. The difference is that an Unascended Master has its base of operations in a physical body and an Ascended Master in a spiritual. To dismiss the latter as spooks, because the they do not conform to one’s idea of flesh-and-blood Masters, is to deny oneself the great wisdom coming from the 'anointed.' ” In defense of Ballard &co. Govert From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 01:15:46 1998 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 00:58:40 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: El Morya? Message-ID: <006e01bdc1c8$83bc0800$340a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> >Occult explanations and instructions from El Morya and Koot Hoomi to >their pupil A.P. Sinnett written in >the early 1880s. >------------------------------- > >El Morya? Govert, where do >you find the name "El Morya" >in this volume of letters? >What page? You're right. If I spelled K.H.'s name in the old way I should have been consequent and do the same with M.'s name. Thanks for pointing out. >Master Morya is only called by this >"El" name in later pseudo-theosophical >writings. Readers beware! Well, that makes it easier for the fundamentalist Blavatskyites to identify them as such 8^) In defense of Ballard&co. Govert From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 02:57:41 1998 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:46:24 PDT From: "David Green" Subject: Re: A Pearl of Wisdom Message-ID: <19980807074627.6519.qmail@hotmail.com> ------------------------------- Vaivasvata Manu communicated message to your chosen prophet? You seriously believe this? No, this message sounds like communications from Hercules. No! Wait! The vibration is more akin to the Goddess Chastity. I've some property in Siberia, would you like to buy some? It's real cheap. This "blah-blah-blah-blah" type of oration is typical of 1000s of books published in last 100 years from thousands of mediums & channelers. Govert, believe what you want, but I'll stick with the "Mahatma Letters". On 2nd ed, p 415, Koot Hoomi pens following words------ ""Finally does not Mrs Kingsford feel.....that she saw and conversed with God!!; and that but a few evenings after she talked with, and received a written communication from the spirit of a dog? .........And who purer or more truthful than that woman......! Mystery, mystery will you exclaim. IGNORANCE we answer; the creation of that we believe in and want to see."" You read the Ballard/Prophet stuff. I'll stick with Blavatsky/ Mahatma Letter volumes. I'm afraid Ballard/Prophet material can rot one's brain. If Mrs Blavatsky's Masters are actually communicating thru your prophet, then they've descended in last 100 years & are currently spooks & bhuts. Govert, if your prophet is in contact with Mrs Blavatsky's teachers, then I must be MahaChohan himself! I channel one word commenting on "Pearls of Wisdom"---- FLAPDOODLE! > >Dear friends, > >On 7/22 Jake Jaqua posted a review of "Kuthumi on Selfhood" >(Malibu: Summit University Press, 1969). I like to respond in two >ways. First by giving a reaction to the review, and >secondly by posting one of the messages from the book so you can >decide for yourself if the review is fair or not. > > >This is the message: > >From "Kuthumi on Selfhood," pp.177-180, from the series "Pearls >of Wisdom," Vol. 12 No. 41 > >Vaivasvata Manu - October 12, 1969 > > >The Hierarchical Principle of a Chaste Intent, >the Law of the Wheel within the Wheel, >and the Cutting Edge of the Sword of the Spirit > > >To All Who Would Understand and Serve the Intent of Hierarchy: >Most of the seething unrest that permeates the atmosphere of the >planet >today is a manifestation of that human selfishness which seeks to >manipulate men. This type of control works through cleverness of >wit >and sophistication that always takes into account man's >susceptibility >to pride and what is referred to as =93snob appeal.=94 People are >being >forced by their own vanities and emotions into the position of >being >manipulated, and they have allowed themselves to become puppets >of their >own limited imaginations. > >The Great White Brotherhood is currently seeking effective means >of >bridging the chasm between popular opinion and the progressive >instruction which the masters seek to convey to mankind. Thus it >is our >hope to restore a climate of spiritual receptivity that may be >accelerated into a golden-age understanding that will promote >peace and >harmony upon earth. > >The hungers in the hearts of men for spiritual bread gnaw at >their >serenity and often drive them to commit acts of which they are >later >ashamed. Humanity's destructive momentums of self-condemnation >are >often shifted to a collective scapegoat or to an individual who >becomes >the target of the personal malice of millions. > >The solutions to mankind's present problems are not apparent to >those >who are embroiled in them. These problems are compounded on the > >one >hand by an extreme narrow-mindedness, and on the other by a >fanatical >liberalism. To have what we may term a hard core of >knowledgeable >disciples upon the planet, who are devoted to enlightened >humanistic >interests, does not guarantee that the remainder of the >population will >adopt the correct attitudes which will bring about improved >conditions >in human relations. > >We must be able to use those in different states of spiritual >awareness, >according to their highest capacities, who will act as mediators >in the >world of form. These must act neither on the basis of fear nor >on that >of misguided love, but on the hierarchical principle of a chaste >intent. >This is the intent whose only goal is the enlightenment of >humanity and >the creation of a broad spectrum of tolerances that will not be >found so >far afield of true freedom as to give no voice to the >discrimination of >the Christ mind. > >Naturally, we are interested in all people. And we are >interested in >establishing a rapport between differing modes of spiritual >thought that >will bring about a long overdue synthesis of understanding, >including a >codification of religious terminologies with a view to making >what we >may term =93the occult=94 more easily assimilable by an evolving >humanity. >It is unfortunate that through the years many have been used to >complicate the structure of the teachings which we have sought to >build >as a bridge of comprehension over which a bewildered and seeking >humanity might pass. > >One of the messages that we must get across, with the help of our >disciples, is the practicality of the councils of the Great White >Brotherhood. The most complex problems are seen through our eyes >as >resolvable through reasonability, affability, and mankind's own >willingness to implement the solutions we offer. Therefore, in >the >final hours of this year, we enlist the aid of the students in >spreading >abroad the good news of the higher teachings of Christ to all who >will >give ear to the voice of God that still speaks in the wilderness >of >humanity's consciousness, saying: =93Prepare ye the way of the >Lord.=94 >We cannot condone the actions of those who thrive upon the poison >of >malicious gossip, nor do we hold guiltless those who spread lies >about >others. If those who consider themselves to be among the >vanguard of >the spiritual forces of the world are to remain effectively >aligned with >the hierarchy in their outer service, they must hold to the >cardinal >principles of virtue in their dealings with one another. At the >same >time, they must exhibit internally an attitude of compassionate >comprehension toward those whose zeal at the beginning of the >Path >causes them to feel, albeit sometimes rashly, that they are more >efficient standard-bearers than those who have for many years >been >continuously engaged in a form of service to humanity. >It is not necessary for a student on the Path to judge the merit >of >another disciple or of another movement in order to be effective >in his >own particular calling. We of the hierarchy are not so much >concerned >that people work together in the same avenue of expression as we >are >that they learn to concentrate their energies and their attention >on the >purification of their individual worlds and whatever avenue they >have >chosen as an outlet for their expression of the Christ. Only >when >individual man has resolved his personal problems by improving >his >attitude toward his fellowmen can he become an effective mediator >in the >arena of world action where he will encounter many schools of >thought. >The time has come for visionaries to understand that it is not >necessary >for them to build a house in which all of the people of the world >can >live. These must understand what we have termed the Law of the >Wheel >within the Wheel. EN2 This law has to do with the interchange of >the >microcosm and the Macrocosm, and it reveals that all >manifestation must >be patterned =93as above, so below.=94 Pur et simple this means that >any >endeavor, regardless of its size, can manifest the same cardinal >virtue >of sincerity which the Brotherhood advocates; for all who would >embrace >the truth can learn to outpicture within their own field of >service an >aspect of the design of the universal temple. >Millions can drink from one spring if the water be pure; for >there joy >is conveyed, and this is the purpose of our Brotherhood. Men and >women >do not need to be joined together as an incongruous pile of >lumber >haphazardly nailed together. But they do need the essential >spiritual >conveyances of service and of technique which bring peace to the >heart >and expand their knowledge of the mysteries of the Christ. >Working with >the central purposes of hierarchy, they will then draw forth the >necessary harmonizing factors that will make all life one. On >the other >hand, attempts to integrate religious groups and ideas often >bring about >a segregation of both, as people, through encounter, may become >less >tolerant of one another and less inclined to accept one another's >concepts and goals. > >Evolution, in a spiritual sense, comes either gradually or >suddenly to >men; and it is difficult for those in either category to >appreciate the >progress of those in the other. How wise was he who said, =93With >all thy >getting get understanding.=94 The business of educating humanity >along >the spiritual path is a great necessity at the present hour; >therefore, >we are most concerned with the cutting edge of the sword of the >Spirit >that is held in the hand of the devotee, for it is the correct >implementation of the Word, referred to in the Scriptures as the >=93sword >of the Spirit,=94 that is all important to the evolving soul. >Whether you fight under one flag or another, as long as you are >true to >yourself and to the activation of the power of faith within your >heart, >as long as you are unfolding the principles of higher wisdom and >removing the impediments of dogmatic interpretation that have >prevented >your acceptance of truth through the years, as long as you are >amplifying a selfless love that recognizes what is real in the >scientific manifestation of being, you are a part of our >vanguard. We >want you to feel, each and every one of you, that the need for >individual spiritual unfoldment is paramount. Then we want you >to see >the value of collective associations and examinations of truth >that >follow the theme of the hour which must ever be acknowledged as >Christly >discrimination. > >Many rash deeds are done in the name of altruism whereas, if a >little >foresight had been exercised, much pain would have been spared to >the >self and to others. Our concerns, then, lie in the forward >movement of >mankind in a service that is guided by the wholeness of cosmic >reasonability and justice and in a purity that is free from >personal >pride, a purity that adheres with maximum effort to the >principles of >honesty for which there are no substitutes. > >As it has been said, =93God give us the freedom to do the right as >we see >it.=94 May we, then, call forth in all of you the blessing of >freedom to >see with the eyes of the Spirit the vision of one man transposed >to >become one world. For only through the life patterns of the >Masters of >Wisdom, only through living in keeping with the pure truth of >being will >man and what he does become permanent. He will not have to >backtrack or >to recycle old errors, for he will have transcended the world and >all >that's in it. > >Press on. Keep on keeping on. Only victory lies ahead! > >For the hierarchy, I remain graciously > >Vaivasvata Manu > > >____________________________________________________ >1. Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:3. >2. Ezek. 1:16. >3. Prov. 4:7. >4. Eph. 6:17. > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 03:12:40 1998 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:46:29 PDT From: "David Green" Subject: Re: A Pearl of Wisdom Message-ID: <19980807074632.25197.qmail@hotmail.com> ------------------------------- Vaivasvata Manu communicated message to your chosen prophet? You seriously believe this? No, this message sounds like communications from Hercules. No! Wait! The vibration is more akin to the Goddess Chastity. I've some property in Siberia, would you like to buy some? It's real cheap. This "blah-blah-blah-blah" type of oration is typical of 1000s of books published in last 100 years from thousands of mediums & channelers. Govert, believe what you want, but I'll stick with the "Mahatma Letters". On 2nd ed, p 415, Koot Hoomi pens following words------ ""Finally does not Mrs Kingsford feel.....that she saw and conversed with God!!; and that but a few evenings after she talked with, and received a written communication from the spirit of a dog? .........And who purer or more truthful than that woman......! Mystery, mystery will you exclaim. IGNORANCE we answer; the creation of that we believe in and want to see."" You read the Ballard/Prophet stuff. I'll stick with Blavatsky/ Mahatma Letter volumes. I'm afraid Ballard/Prophet material can rot one's brain. If Mrs Blavatsky's Masters are actually communicating thru your prophet, then they've descended in last 100 years & are currently spooks & bhuts. Govert, if your prophet is in contact with Mrs Blavatsky's teachers, then I must be MahaChohan himself! I channel one word commenting on "Pearls of Wisdom"---- FLAPDOODLE! > >Dear friends, > >On 7/22 Jake Jaqua posted a review of "Kuthumi on Selfhood" >(Malibu: Summit University Press, 1969). I like to respond in two >ways. First by giving a reaction to the review, and >secondly by posting one of the messages from the book so you can >decide for yourself if the review is fair or not. > > >This is the message: > >From "Kuthumi on Selfhood," pp.177-180, from the series "Pearls >of Wisdom," Vol. 12 No. 41 > >Vaivasvata Manu - October 12, 1969 > > >The Hierarchical Principle of a Chaste Intent, >the Law of the Wheel within the Wheel, >and the Cutting Edge of the Sword of the Spirit > > >To All Who Would Understand and Serve the Intent of Hierarchy: >Most of the seething unrest that permeates the atmosphere of the >planet >today is a manifestation of that human selfishness which seeks to >manipulate men. This type of control works through cleverness of >wit >and sophistication that always takes into account man's >susceptibility >to pride and what is referred to as =93snob appeal.=94 People are >being >forced by their own vanities and emotions into the position of >being >manipulated, and they have allowed themselves to become puppets >of their >own limited imaginations. > >The Great White Brotherhood is currently seeking effective means >of >bridging the chasm between popular opinion and the progressive >instruction which the masters seek to convey to mankind. Thus it >is our >hope to restore a climate of spiritual receptivity that may be >accelerated into a golden-age understanding that will promote >peace and >harmony upon earth. > >The hungers in the hearts of men for spiritual bread gnaw at >their >serenity and often drive them to commit acts of which they are >later >ashamed. Humanity's destructive momentums of self-condemnation >are >often shifted to a collective scapegoat or to an individual who >becomes >the target of the personal malice of millions. > >The solutions to mankind's present problems are not apparent to >those >who are embroiled in them. These problems are compounded on the > >one >hand by an extreme narrow-mindedness, and on the other by a >fanatical >liberalism. To have what we may term a hard core of >knowledgeable >disciples upon the planet, who are devoted to enlightened >humanistic >interests, does not guarantee that the remainder of the >population will >adopt the correct attitudes which will bring about improved >conditions >in human relations. > >We must be able to use those in different states of spiritual >awareness, >according to their highest capacities, who will act as mediators >in the >world of form. These must act neither on the basis of fear nor >on that >of misguided love, but on the hierarchical principle of a chaste >intent. >This is the intent whose only goal is the enlightenment of >humanity and >the creation of a broad spectrum of tolerances that will not be >found so >far afield of true freedom as to give no voice to the >discrimination of >the Christ mind. > >Naturally, we are interested in all people. And we are >interested in >establishing a rapport between differing modes of spiritual >thought that >will bring about a long overdue synthesis of understanding, >including a >codification of religious terminologies with a view to making >what we >may term =93the occult=94 more easily assimilable by an evolving >humanity. >It is unfortunate that through the years many have been used to >complicate the structure of the teachings which we have sought to >build >as a bridge of comprehension over which a bewildered and seeking >humanity might pass. > >One of the messages that we must get across, with the help of our >disciples, is the practicality of the councils of the Great White >Brotherhood. The most complex problems are seen through our eyes >as >resolvable through reasonability, affability, and mankind's own >willingness to implement the solutions we offer. Therefore, in >the >final hours of this year, we enlist the aid of the students in >spreading >abroad the good news of the higher teachings of Christ to all who >will >give ear to the voice of God that still speaks in the wilderness >of >humanity's consciousness, saying: =93Prepare ye the way of the >Lord.=94 >We cannot condone the actions of those who thrive upon the poison >of >malicious gossip, nor do we hold guiltless those who spread lies >about >others. If those who consider themselves to be among the >vanguard of >the spiritual forces of the world are to remain effectively >aligned with >the hierarchy in their outer service, they must hold to the >cardinal >principles of virtue in their dealings with one another. At the >same >time, they must exhibit internally an attitude of compassionate >comprehension toward those whose zeal at the beginning of the >Path >causes them to feel, albeit sometimes rashly, that they are more >efficient standard-bearers than those who have for many years >been >continuously engaged in a form of service to humanity. >It is not necessary for a student on the Path to judge the merit >of >another disciple or of another movement in order to be effective >in his >own particular calling. We of the hierarchy are not so much >concerned >that people work together in the same avenue of expression as we >are >that they learn to concentrate their energies and their attention >on the >purification of their individual worlds and whatever avenue they >have >chosen as an outlet for their expression of the Christ. Only >when >individual man has resolved his personal problems by improving >his >attitude toward his fellowmen can he become an effective mediator >in the >arena of world action where he will encounter many schools of >thought. >The time has come for visionaries to understand that it is not >necessary >for them to build a house in which all of the people of the world >can >live. These must understand what we have termed the Law of the >Wheel >within the Wheel. EN2 This law has to do with the interchange of >the >microcosm and the Macrocosm, and it reveals that all >manifestation must >be patterned =93as above, so below.=94 Pur et simple this means that >any >endeavor, regardless of its size, can manifest the same cardinal >virtue >of sincerity which the Brotherhood advocates; for all who would >embrace >the truth can learn to outpicture within their own field of >service an >aspect of the design of the universal temple. >Millions can drink from one spring if the water be pure; for >there joy >is conveyed, and this is the purpose of our Brotherhood. Men and >women >do not need to be joined together as an incongruous pile of >lumber >haphazardly nailed together. But they do need the essential >spiritual >conveyances of service and of technique which bring peace to the >heart >and expand their knowledge of the mysteries of the Christ. >Working with >the central purposes of hierarchy, they will then draw forth the >necessary harmonizing factors that will make all life one. On >the other >hand, attempts to integrate religious groups and ideas often >bring about >a segregation of both, as people, through encounter, may become >less >tolerant of one another and less inclined to accept one another's >concepts and goals. > >Evolution, in a spiritual sense, comes either gradually or >suddenly to >men; and it is difficult for those in either category to >appreciate the >progress of those in the other. How wise was he who said, =93With >all thy >getting get understanding.=94 The business of educating humanity >along >the spiritual path is a great necessity at the present hour; >therefore, >we are most concerned with the cutting edge of the sword of the >Spirit >that is held in the hand of the devotee, for it is the correct >implementation of the Word, referred to in the Scriptures as the >=93sword >of the Spirit,=94 that is all important to the evolving soul. >Whether you fight under one flag or another, as long as you are >true to >yourself and to the activation of the power of faith within your >heart, >as long as you are unfolding the principles of higher wisdom and >removing the impediments of dogmatic interpretation that have >prevented >your acceptance of truth through the years, as long as you are >amplifying a selfless love that recognizes what is real in the >scientific manifestation of being, you are a part of our >vanguard. We >want you to feel, each and every one of you, that the need for >individual spiritual unfoldment is paramount. Then we want you >to see >the value of collective associations and examinations of truth >that >follow the theme of the hour which must ever be acknowledged as >Christly >discrimination. > >Many rash deeds are done in the name of altruism whereas, if a >little >foresight had been exercised, much pain would have been spared to >the >self and to others. Our concerns, then, lie in the forward >movement of >mankind in a service that is guided by the wholeness of cosmic >reasonability and justice and in a purity that is free from >personal >pride, a purity that adheres with maximum effort to the >principles of >honesty for which there are no substitutes. > >As it has been said, =93God give us the freedom to do the right as >we see >it.=94 May we, then, call forth in all of you the blessing of >freedom to >see with the eyes of the Spirit the vision of one man transposed >to >become one world. For only through the life patterns of the >Masters of >Wisdom, only through living in keeping with the pure truth of >being will >man and what he does become permanent. He will not have to >backtrack or >to recycle old errors, for he will have transcended the world and >all >that's in it. > >Press on. Keep on keeping on. Only victory lies ahead! > >For the hierarchy, I remain graciously > >Vaivasvata Manu > > >____________________________________________________ >1. Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:3. >2. Ezek. 1:16. >3. Prov. 4:7. >4. Eph. 6:17. > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 08:50:46 1998 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:36:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Disrespectful discourse Message-Id: <199808071336.JAA20433@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> It's hard not to notice, upon returning to this list after being away for a time, that there's a continuing presence, in Theosophical discourse, of expressions of emphatic disrespect for others with different views. It's taken considerable work on my part not to take that personally, since I've been so publicly and voluminously disrespected by various people. (And no, disputing one's books is not in itself disrespect.) For example, in the last couple days, David Green has "dissed" me as a disputable author, Govert as irrational and uninformed, and implicitly all Theosophists and others who don't buy into his particular interpretation of HPB and Theosophy. In Jake's review, he is very emphatic in expressing disrespect for EC Prophet, channelers in general, and their followers. Not to mention the many others who have in times past dissed various people on and off this list. Meanwhile, the ratio of dissing to normal respectful conversation on netsfg, the Cayce online community, is 1/100 at worst. And being in such an environment on a daily basis makes it that much more evident that something is rotten in Theosophical discourse generally, in the way people think it is OK to talk to and about others. This presumably goes back to the model of some of HPB's articles and letters, and some Mahatma letters, which have a very large element of dissing. By comparison, the Cayce readings are consistently and profoundly respectful of everyone, including some people with bizarre beliefs. These tones of discourse become models of how later followers communicate, IMO. I'd like, therefore, to ask David and Jake, Dallas if he's still reading, and anyone else who might recognize himself as a consistent disser, some questions. How does it feel when you are in the mode of emphatic disrespect for others' views? How does it feel to express this? How does that state of mind relate to what you experience in meditation or other spiritual practice? How do the writings you regard as sacred orient you to the legitimacy of dissing people with differing views? As Cayce said, "That one cannot endure within itself it finds as a fault in others." This suggests that those Theosophists who devote a large share of attention to dissing others for being irrational, for believing in unsupportable and "crazy" things, for being "crackpots" (a word Jake once applied to me in a review), are in fact filled with fear that they themselves are doing the same thing. There's some kind of internal division going on here and the shadow gets projected onto others. Which suggests that a means to healing the split will be to own just how much irrationality and craziness and unsupportability might be present in one's own belief system, in all belief systems; to accept one's own fallibility and that of others, and to abandon one's focus on Perfected Beings and Authoritative Scriptures. This advice from one who's been there, done that, and feels ashamed of the way I would in the past have talked to a follower of ECP. Hope that Govert understands that while I haven't a grain of faith in any of the alleged Masters of ECP and their agents in the Ballard/Prophet lineage, I do respect him and his belief. Namaste. Paul From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 11:02:38 1998 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 09:04:53 PDT From: "David Green" Subject: Re: Disrespectful discourse Message-ID: <19980807160455.221.qmail@hotmail.com> >From: "K Paul Johnson" >For example, in the >last couple days, David Green has "dissed" me as a disputable >author, Folks, people, assembled multitude, peruse D Pratt's essay on P Johnson's book & decide what is & is not disputable. That was my point. >Govert as irrational and uninformed, and implicitly all >Theosophists and others who don't buy into his particular >interpretation of HPB and Theosophy. Well, maybe I'm also uninformed & irrational. Hey, diss me. I'll survive with Gloria Gaynor. But I'll be damned, I can't understand how informed & rational persons could accept Masters of "The Mahatma Letters" & also believe in ECP's Masters. I'm sure Govert is sincere in his belief. No doubt. No doubt. I'm just saying I find such belief irrational. >In Jake's review, he is >very emphatic in expressing disrespect for EC Prophet, channelers >in general, and their followers. Not to mention the many others >who have in times past dissed various people on and off this list. Why must one have respect for EC Prophet & her channeling? Do you have respect for Jerry Falwell, his channelings from Jehovah, & his view of the world? This doesn't mean I hate them. Just no respect for them. >Meanwhile, the ratio of dissing to normal respectful conversation >on netsfg, the Cayce online community, is 1/100 at worst. And >being in such an environment on a daily basis makes it that much >more evident that something is rotten in Theosophical discourse >generally, in the way people think it is OK to talk to and about >others. This presumably goes back to the model of some of >HPB's articles and letters, and some Mahatma letters, which have a >very large element of dissing. By comparison, the Cayce readings >are consistently and profoundly respectful of everyone, including >some people with bizarre beliefs. These tones of discourse >become models of how later followers communicate, IMO. Hey, looks like I'm in good company with Mrs Blavatsky & Mahatmas. Anyone for plain, forthright talk? Calling a spade a spade? IMO, Mrs Blavatsy & her Mahatmas are refreshing for telling it like it is. ECP's Masters are all goody-good & sugary sweet. Upchuck is my auto response. >I'd like, therefore, to ask David and Jake, Dallas if he's still >reading, and anyone else who might recognize himself as a >consistent disser, some questions. How does it feel when you are >in the mode of emphatic disrespect for others' views? How does >it feel to express this? How does that state of mind relate to >what you experience in meditation or other spiritual practice? >How do the writings you regard as sacred orient you to the >legitimacy of dissing people with differing views? What writings do I regard as sacred? Sacred? Oh, you're a clever one, Pauly Johnson. I regard Mrs Blavatsky's writings & Mahatma Letters as reliable but not as sacred. Again, read my big, beautiful red lips---- reliable not sacred >As Cayce said, "That one cannot endure within itself it finds as >a fault in others." This suggests that those Theosophists who >devote a large share of attention to dissing others for being >irrational, for believing in unsupportable and "crazy" things, >for being "crackpots" (a word Jake once applied to me in a >review), are in fact filled with fear that they themselves are >doing the same thing. There's some kind of internal division >going on here and the shadow gets projected onto others. Which >suggests that a means to healing the split will be to own just >how much irrationality and craziness and unsupportability might >be present in one's own belief system, in all belief systems; to >accept one's own fallibility and that of others, and to abandon >one's focus on Perfected Beings and Authoritative Scriptures. Again, P J, baby, I'm not focused on Perfected Beings and Authoritative Scriptures. I merely find Blavatsky/ Mahatma writings down to earth & reliable compared to Ballard/Prophet stuff. Hey, there may well be irrationality & craziness & unsupportability in my belief system. Diss me & my beliefs, if you can. I'm open to changing my views. Overwhelm me with rationality, e t c Are you & Govert open? >This advice from one who's been there, done that, and feels >ashamed of the way I would in the past have talked to a follower >of ECP. Hope that Govert understands that while I haven't a >grain of faith in any of the alleged Masters of ECP and their >agents in the Ballard/Prophet lineage, I do respect him and his >belief. > >Namaste. >Paul I'm sure Govert & other followers of ECP are sincere. Govert's probably a nice dude. I just don't think his belief that Ballard & Prophet follow in Blavatsky's footsteps is a very rational one. Maybe I'm wrong but even you apparently agree with my view. Think I'll go to my fav Sydney pub and dance the night away with Miquel Brown. Now she's the one with big, beautiful red lips!! Namaste to you too Paul!! & Namaste to you too Govert & to all a goodd'y ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 11:17:51 1998 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:18:22 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Finding a guru Message-Id: <199808071618.AA18507@lafn.org> If it were someone other than the PJ writing this, I would spend more time and effort to find quotes to refute his notions. For those of you who know little about Blavatsky and her view of gurus, just ignore PJ's writings. He has all the spiritual insight of a wad of chewing gum. Yes, this is disrespectful towards PJ. But somewhere beyond he and I and everyone is our Divine Nature, to which I prostrate. My personality, our personalities -- all deserve little attention and as little respect -- most of the time. Best, -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 11:47:38 1998 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:37:00 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <35CB2D2C.A5B66878@usa.net> References: <003401bdc15c$a2e1c920$5a0a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> I would like to read that book also. Is it available to buy easily? Govert W. Schüller wrote: > > >Govert----- > > > >Read Thomas' book. I've > >studied "Theosophy vs > >Neo-Theosophy" & discussed it with > >C Leadbeater students > > I'll do. Meanwhile stay tuned for some 'insanity' from me to be > posted soon on this list. > > Govert > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 12:02:36 1998 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:35:43 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <35CB2CDF.984A9696@usa.net> References: <19980805152358.12891.qmail@hotmail.com> David Green wrote: > I've > studied "Theosophy vs > Neo-Theosophy" & discussed it with > C Leadbeater students. If you > believe Leadbeater's teachings, then > you don't understand Mrs Blavatsky's > books. Or maybe you don't agree with everything Blvatsky writes. Maybe you think that she does not have monopoly on truth. (And neither has Leadbeater, of course). > In dozen of cases, C > Leadbeater contradicted Mrs Blavatsky. That could mean that L is right and B is wrong, or both are wrong, right? Or is B always right, by definition? > In many instances Leadbeater reads like > comic book fantasy. > Obtain Thomas book & > do some rational thinking. To me it seems you mean by rational thinking: "Do not believe in anything that contradicts Blavatsky". Bjorn From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 12:50:51 1998 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:48:46 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: Re: Finding a guru In-Reply-To: <199808071618.AA18507@lafn.org> Message-Id: >If it were someone other than the PJ writing this, I would spend more time >and effort to find quotes to refute his notions. For those of you who >know little about Blavatsky and her view of gurus, just ignore PJ's >writings. He has all the spiritual insight of a wad of chewing gum. Yes, >this is disrespectful towards PJ. But somewhere beyond he and I and >everyone is our Divine Nature, to which I prostrate. My personality, our >personalities -- all deserve little attention and as little respect -- >most of the time. > >Best, > >-- ><> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." > Blavatsky > Welcome back, Nicholas! Fraternally yours, Rudy From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 18:40:33 1998 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 19:27:50 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Paul, Govert, etc. Message-ID: <35CB8D75.F87DF669@henry-net.com> Govert: I think probably the majority of people on this list could write something more "esoteric" or deep than what is in the Prophet book. About "dissing" people. Well, It is better to avoid personal attacks if possible and I try to avoid it more than I used to. But my personal irritation steps in often because I believe people are purposively B.S.ing others, or their ego is so large that they are actually serving their ego with a "catchy" idea rather that disciplining themselves to seek truth. People's lives are RUINED by following false teachings, so it is a serious matter. Is it better to let someone else be deceived, just for the sake of superficial harmony - like Paul approves of in the Cayce group? (Cayce didn't make the big claims that Blavatsky did, so there is not as much to argue about.) A large percentage of Blavatsky's articles were highly critical in nature, and she is a good example to follow. Are personal sentimentalities more important than truth, even if some temporary pain is involved? Maybe sometimes yes and sometimes no. Not to criticize is to die. Does Truth (or what you are convinced strongly and for good reason is Truth) need defending? Well, every effort from the Lodge has supposedly been a failure in the west so far - until this one. Look what happened in the few hundred years after Jesus - darkness in the west for a 1000 years. I think truth is worth defending, even if you hurt some feelings and step on some toes. What I have a hard time understanding are those that never defend convictions they have. On the other hand..... once you establish your philosophic position, and it is still rejected by someone - I may think the other person is an idiot, but also believe in defending his right to be an idiot without persecution. - Jake J. From ???@??? Fri Aug 7 21:19:32 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 11:50:53 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Why we should all love Kym Smith like one of our own Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980808115053.00751f84@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199807301400.JAA01766@proteus.imagiware.com> The ever illustrious Kym Baby wrote: >From: "Kym Smith" >Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 02:31:22 -0600 >Subject: Re: Uh, something about selfishness? > >Some father's backward son writes: > >> (nos interjects) >> It depends on whether you can use dog as an anagram of god or an analogy of >> god, or as an analaogy of anagram of god, or as an anamgram of an analogy >> of god. > >Been tokin' on the wacky weed, Darren. It is impolite not to share, you know (and you >thought I wouldn't get the meaning of your e-mail title, didn't ya?). Shame. I would share it with every person on the list if I could dude. (BTW, the dude abides, kinda comforting that) But you'd have to come to my country where it isn't a felony. So an open invitation to all Theosophists worldwide to come down under and 'partake of the herbacious'. If its goog enough for HPB its good enough for me. My computer stopped a jamiacan from talking - is that a Rasta Interupt? Master D (descended of course) From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 04:47:35 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 10:44:55 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Disrespectful discourse Message-ID: <000001bdc2b1$33480600$6b8bf2c2@bazzer> In-Reply-To: <199808071336.JAA20433@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Importance: Normal There is a difference between disrespect and giving an honest opinion. There is a tendency these day's to tread the road of least resistance, along with fluffy-bunny political correctness where, it appears, one should avoid "upsetting" anyone at all costs. Fortunately, this is not a trend HPB had the slightest inclination for. A theosophist (or non theosophist, for that matter) should speak freely and fearlessly with little or no personal regard for being liked/disliked; agreed-with/disagreed-with etc. How another acts - or *re*acts - to this is largely a matter for themselves . . . and karma. By all means let us respect the views and opinions of other's, but let us not deter either ourselves or others from giving an honest opinion in plain honest language. On which basis: all this "El Morya", self-ascending (or is it *descending* now that Vaivasvatta Manu appears to have reincarnated) saviour gubbins is derived, most likely, from an intoxication of the (lower) astral light, i.e. "FLAPDOODLE". "That which is uncreate abides in thee, Disciple, as it abides in that Hall. If thou woulds't reach it and blend the two, thou must divest thyself of thy dark garments of illusion. Stifle the voice of flesh, allow no image of the senses to get between its light and thine that thus the twain may blend in one. And having learnt thine own *Agnyana* (21), flee from the Hall of Learning. This Hall is dangerous in its perfidious beauty, is needed but for thy probation. Beware, Lanoo, lest dazzled by illusive radiance thy Soul should linger and be caught in its deceptive light. This light shines from the jewel of the Great Ensnarer, (Mara) (22). The senses it bewitches, blinds the mind, and leaves the unwary an abandoned wreck". ("The Voice of the Silence", pg 7/8). Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer) > It's hard not to notice, upon returning to this list after being > away for a time, that there's a continuing presence, in > Theosophical discourse, of expressions of emphatic disrespect for > others with different views. It's taken considerable work on my > part not to take that personally, since I've been so publicly and > voluminously disrespected by various people. (And no, disputing > one's books is not in itself disrespect.) For example, in the > last couple days, David Green has "dissed" me as a disputable > author, Govert as irrational and uninformed, and implicitly all > Theosophists and others who don't buy into his particular > interpretation of HPB and Theosophy. In Jake's review, he is > very emphatic in expressing disrespect for EC Prophet, channelers > in general, and their followers. Not to mention the many others > who have in times past dissed various people on and off this list. > > Meanwhile, the ratio of dissing to normal respectful conversation > on netsfg, the Cayce online community, is 1/100 at worst. And > being in such an environment on a daily basis makes it that much > more evident that something is rotten in Theosophical discourse > generally, in the way people think it is OK to talk to and about > others. This presumably goes back to the model of some of > HPB's articles and letters, and some Mahatma letters, which have a > very large element of dissing. By comparison, the Cayce readings > are consistently and profoundly respectful of everyone, including > some people with bizarre beliefs. These tones of discourse > become models of how later followers communicate, IMO. > > I'd like, therefore, to ask David and Jake, Dallas if he's still > reading, and anyone else who might recognize himself as a > consistent disser, some questions. How does it feel when you are > in the mode of emphatic disrespect for others' views? How does > it feel to express this? How does that state of mind relate to > what you experience in meditation or other spiritual practice? > How do the writings you regard as sacred orient you to the > legitimacy of dissing people with differing views? > > As Cayce said, "That one cannot endure within itself it finds as > a fault in others." This suggests that those Theosophists who > devote a large share of attention to dissing others for being > irrational, for believing in unsupportable and "crazy" things, > for being "crackpots" (a word Jake once applied to me in a > review), are in fact filled with fear that they themselves are > doing the same thing. There's some kind of internal division > going on here and the shadow gets projected onto others. Which > suggests that a means to healing the split will be to own just > how much irrationality and craziness and unsupportability might > be present in one's own belief system, in all belief systems; to > accept one's own fallibility and that of others, and to abandon > one's focus on Perfected Beings and Authoritative Scriptures. > > This advice from one who's been there, done that, and feels > ashamed of the way I would in the past have talked to a follower > of ECP. Hope that Govert understands that while I haven't a > grain of faith in any of the alleged Masters of ECP and their > agents in the Ballard/Prophet lineage, I do respect him and his > belief. > > Namaste. > Paul > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 06:47:35 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 12:40:07 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #346 Message-Id: <199808081140.MAA27779@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Jake J. wrote: > Celibacy (no conscious >sex-action of any kind) is a simple part of it compared to >more subtle moral evils to overcome. "No conscious sex-action of any kind"? Why put in "conscious"? Wouldn't an unconscious sex-action be the same? Masters are conscious 24 hours per day? To what extent would lanoos, or even chelas be tending in this direction? Tony From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 07:47:34 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 08:49:07 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Thomas book Message-ID: <35CC4942.F17523EA@henry-net.com> >I would like to read that book also. Is it available to buy easily? Bjorn: I have Thomas's book for $7.00 (plus $1.50 post US) from: M. R. Jaqua, POB 444, Grand Rapids, Ohio 43522. USA (Check to: M. R. Jaqua) I think Wizards Bookshelf still has the book also: Wizards Bookshelf, POB 6600, San Diego, CA 92166 USA. I've also still got a few copies of Tillet's "Elder Brother" at $15 plus post. (Geez, a few more book sales and I'll be in double digits for the year!) - Jake J. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 08:02:34 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 09:40:22 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: "Conscious" Message-ID: Tony writes: >"No conscious sex-action of any kind"? Why put in >"conscious"? >Wouldn't an unconscious sex-action be the same? >Masters are conscious 24 hours per day? To what >extent would lanoos, or >even chelas be tending in this direction? >Tony -------------------------------------------------- I put in "conscious" to exclude onanism, which many think is still "celibacy." And yes, you're right the direction is to being able to control your dreams also. - Jake J. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 09:47:34 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 10:49:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Disrespect vs. disagreement Message-Id: <199808081449.KAA25612@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808081400.JAA13636@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 8, 98 09:00:11 am According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com: Some further comments. I don't think people are grasping the difference between disagreeing with someone's position, not respecting the evidence or logic on which it is based, and expressing *dis*respect for the *person*. Simple way of telling the difference-- put yourself in the other's shoes and ask "Would I find this offensive if directed at me?" If you're terminally insensitive and insulting, then ask someone else who has more tact. David Green wrote: > > Folks, people, assembled multitude, > peruse D Pratt's essay > on P Johnson's book & decide > what is & is not disputable. > That was my point. It would make sense to encourage people to read the books (he attacks three) and try to perceive them directly, and *then* to read criticisms (Caldwell's are less dogmatic IMO) and the author's responses to them. Just reading the Pratt attack, which I didn't answer because the number of misconceptions and false accusations was so huge as to require a very long reply, gives only one highly partisan perspective. > > Well, maybe I'm also uninformed > & irrational. Hey, diss me. > I'll survive with Gloria Gaynor. We all are in various ways, and would be better occupied seeing the mote in our own eyes. > > Masters. I'm sure Govert is sincere > in his belief. No doubt. No doubt. > I'm just saying I find such belief > irrational. As millions of people would find literal belief in the Mahatma letters. Maybe it's the feeling that HPB has been dissed that makes Theosophists think it right to do that to others? > > > Why must one have respect for > EC Prophet & her channeling? I have none. That doesn't authorize me to express *dis*respect. > Do you have respect for Jerry > Falwell, his channelings from Jehovah, > & his view of the world? No, and he's just an hour up the road from me. Not well loved in his own neck of the woods either. But expressing *dis*respect for him and his teachings would serve no constructive purpose. > > This doesn't mean I hate them. Just > no respect for them. Then perhaps silence is the best policy, or irony? > > >How do the writings you regard as sacred orient you to the > >legitimacy of dissing people with differing views? > > What writings do I regard as sacred? > Sacred? Oh, you're a clever one, Pauly > Johnson. I regard Mrs Blavatsky's writings > & Mahatma Letters as reliable but not as > sacred. Again, read my big, beautiful > red lips---- > > reliable not sacred The question still stands. Do the three objects, for example, really encourage the kinds of attacks we've been seeing? > > Diss me & my beliefs, if you can. No thanks. > I'm open to changing my views. > Overwhelm me with rationality, e t c > Are you & Govert open? It's your job to change your views, not mine. Misguided efforts to persuade and convert are wasted time, which probably describes my attempt to get Theosophists to act otherwise than they do. Now Nicholas: > > If it were someone other than the PJ writing this, I would spend more time > and effort to find quotes to refute his notions. The old "I could refute you if I wanted to, but you're not deserving of the honor" routine. > writings. He has all the spiritual insight of a wad of chewing gum. Yes, > this is disrespectful towards PJ. Why do you feel the need to consistently express it in the strongest terms for years and years? Frankly, Nicholas, in 44 years I have never seen the look of pure hatred from anyone (well, say 35 years since I wouldn't remember if it happened in early childhood) I saw in your eyes in San Diego in 1992. Damn scary. All over some books. But somewhere beyond he and I and > everyone is our Divine Nature, to which I prostrate. My personality, our > personalities -- all deserve little attention and as little respect -- > most of the time. Which isn't the same as a license to *dis*respect. Jake writes: > themselves to seek truth. People's lives are RUINED by following > false teachings, so it is a serious matter. People's lives can also be ruined by following true teachings in the wrong way. People's lives can also be positively transformed by following false teachings, if the motives are right. Is it better to let someone > else be deceived, just for the sake of superficial harmony - like Paul > approves of in the Cayce group? It's not a matter of "letting someone else be deceived." We're all deceived in some ways and of course those are precisely the things we don't know we're wrong about. IMO the Cayce approach isn't indifference to false beliefs, but rather "keep ever constructive"-- meaning to encourage what you see as positive rather than attack what you see as negative in the other person. I'm trying, unsuccessfully I fear, to evoke the awareness in you and David and Nicholas etc. that *knows better than to act this way* and get its light to shine on your attitudes. > she is a good example to follow. Are personal sentimentalities more > important than truth, even if some temporary pain is involved? Maybe > sometimes yes and sometimes no. Not to criticize is to die. That's an awfully biased way to put it. An equally biased way that expresses my own perspective is-- which of the paramitas comes first? Loving kindness, not vigor in the search for truth. Sidebar to Darren: > But you'd have to come to my country where it isn't a felony. Not one here. Misdemeanor, $250 fine. > > There is a difference between disrespect and giving an honest opinion. Absolutely. But you seem to think that I lack the ability to discriminate between the two, whereas the written evidence suggests that the "defenders of Blavatskian orthodoxy" don't see the difference. > > There is a tendency these day's to tread the road of least resistance, along > with fluffy-bunny political correctness where, it appears, one should avoid > "upsetting" anyone at all costs. Fortunately, this is not a trend HPB had > the slightest inclination for. You see that as fortunate. I see it as terribly unfortunate, full of karmic consequences for the war-of-all-against-all that the modern Theosophical movement has been, and continues to be on the Net. > > A theosophist (or non theosophist, for that matter) should speak freely and > fearlessly with little or no personal regard for being liked/disliked; Should? Is that a moral should? It's a not a matter of being liked or disliked but a matter of deliberately wounding people. Or, more accurately perhaps, willfully disregarding the potential destructive effects of one's words. That should be so obvious as to go without saying. > agreed-with/disagreed-with etc. How another acts - or *re*acts - to this is > largely a matter for themselves . . . and karma. The karma of the willful infliction of pain on others over doctrinal matters is not enviable. Not that I've ever seen you do this. Namaste, A wad of chewing gum: flexible, refreshing, and tasty too? From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 10:04:55 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 10:49:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Disrespect vs. disagreement Message-Id: <199808081449.KAA25612@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808081400.JAA13636@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 8, 98 09:00:11 am According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com: Some further comments. I don't think people are grasping the difference between disagreeing with someone's position, not respecting the evidence or logic on which it is based, and expressing *dis*respect for the *person*. Simple way of telling the difference-- put yourself in the other's shoes and ask "Would I find this offensive if directed at me?" If you're terminally insensitive and insulting, then ask someone else who has more tact. David Green wrote: > > Folks, people, assembled multitude, > peruse D Pratt's essay > on P Johnson's book & decide > what is & is not disputable. > That was my point. It would make sense to encourage people to read the books (he attacks three) and try to perceive them directly, and *then* to read criticisms (Caldwell's are less dogmatic IMO) and the author's responses to them. Just reading the Pratt attack, which I didn't answer because the number of misconceptions and false accusations was so huge as to require a very long reply, gives only one highly partisan perspective. > > Well, maybe I'm also uninformed > & irrational. Hey, diss me. > I'll survive with Gloria Gaynor. We all are in various ways, and would be better occupied seeing the mote in our own eyes. > > Masters. I'm sure Govert is sincere > in his belief. No doubt. No doubt. > I'm just saying I find such belief > irrational. As millions of people would find literal belief in the Mahatma letters. Maybe it's the feeling that HPB has been dissed that makes Theosophists think it right to do that to others? > > > Why must one have respect for > EC Prophet & her channeling? I have none. That doesn't authorize me to express *dis*respect. > Do you have respect for Jerry > Falwell, his channelings from Jehovah, > & his view of the world? No, and he's just an hour up the road from me. Not well loved in his own neck of the woods either. But expressing *dis*respect for him and his teachings would serve no constructive purpose. > > This doesn't mean I hate them. Just > no respect for them. Then perhaps silence is the best policy, or irony? > > >How do the writings you regard as sacred orient you to the > >legitimacy of dissing people with differing views? > > What writings do I regard as sacred? > Sacred? Oh, you're a clever one, Pauly > Johnson. I regard Mrs Blavatsky's writings > & Mahatma Letters as reliable but not as > sacred. Again, read my big, beautiful > red lips---- > > reliable not sacred The question still stands. Do the three objects, for example, really encourage the kinds of attacks we've been seeing? > > Diss me & my beliefs, if you can. No thanks. > I'm open to changing my views. > Overwhelm me with rationality, e t c > Are you & Govert open? It's your job to change your views, not mine. Misguided efforts to persuade and convert are wasted time, which probably describes my attempt to get Theosophists to act otherwise than they do. Now Nicholas: > > If it were someone other than the PJ writing this, I would spend more time > and effort to find quotes to refute his notions. The old "I could refute you if I wanted to, but you're not deserving of the honor" routine. > writings. He has all the spiritual insight of a wad of chewing gum. Yes, > this is disrespectful towards PJ. Why do you feel the need to consistently express it in the strongest terms for years and years? Frankly, Nicholas, in 44 years I have never seen the look of pure hatred from anyone (well, say 35 years since I wouldn't remember if it happened in early childhood) I saw in your eyes in San Diego in 1992. Damn scary. All over some books. But somewhere beyond he and I and > everyone is our Divine Nature, to which I prostrate. My personality, our > personalities -- all deserve little attention and as little respect -- > most of the time. Which isn't the same as a license to *dis*respect. Jake writes: > themselves to seek truth. People's lives are RUINED by following > false teachings, so it is a serious matter. People's lives can also be ruined by following true teachings in the wrong way. People's lives can also be positively transformed by following false teachings, if the motives are right. Is it better to let someone > else be deceived, just for the sake of superficial harmony - like Paul > approves of in the Cayce group? It's not a matter of "letting someone else be deceived." We're all deceived in some ways and of course those are precisely the things we don't know we're wrong about. IMO the Cayce approach isn't indifference to false beliefs, but rather "keep ever constructive"-- meaning to encourage what you see as positive rather than attack what you see as negative in the other person. I'm trying, unsuccessfully I fear, to evoke the awareness in you and David and Nicholas etc. that *knows better than to act this way* and get its light to shine on your attitudes. > she is a good example to follow. Are personal sentimentalities more > important than truth, even if some temporary pain is involved? Maybe > sometimes yes and sometimes no. Not to criticize is to die. That's an awfully biased way to put it. An equally biased way that expresses my own perspective is-- which of the paramitas comes first? Loving kindness, not vigor in the search for truth. Sidebar to Darren: > But you'd have to come to my country where it isn't a felony. Not one here. Misdemeanor, $250 fine. > > There is a difference between disrespect and giving an honest opinion. Absolutely. But you seem to think that I lack the ability to discriminate between the two, whereas the written evidence suggests that the "defenders of Blavatskian orthodoxy" don't see the difference. > > There is a tendency these day's to tread the road of least resistance, along > with fluffy-bunny political correctness where, it appears, one should avoid > "upsetting" anyone at all costs. Fortunately, this is not a trend HPB had > the slightest inclination for. You see that as fortunate. I see it as terribly unfortunate, full of karmic consequences for the war-of-all-against-all that the modern Theosophical movement has been, and continues to be on the Net. > > A theosophist (or non theosophist, for that matter) should speak freely and > fearlessly with little or no personal regard for being liked/disliked; Should? Is that a moral should? It's a not a matter of being liked or disliked but a matter of deliberately wounding people. Or, more accurately perhaps, willfully disregarding the potential destructive effects of one's words. That should be so obvious as to go without saying. > agreed-with/disagreed-with etc. How another acts - or *re*acts - to this is > largely a matter for themselves . . . and karma. The karma of the willful infliction of pain on others over doctrinal matters is not enviable. Not that I've ever seen you do this. Namaste, A wad of chewing gum: flexible, refreshing, and tasty too? From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 10:47:43 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 11:35:22 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Message-ID: <002401bdc2e2$297569c0$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> PJ wrote: >It's hard not to notice, upon returning to this list after being >away for a time, that there's a continuing presence, in >Theosophical discourse, of expressions of emphatic disrespect for >others with different views. =20 I have noticed that Theos-World is getting more and more like Theos-l was before I left it. Maybe its a Theosophical thing and all nets will eventually go this way? Maybe its time for me to go back to Theos-l for awhile where things have quieted down? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 11:32:34 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 09:33:45 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Disrespect Message-Id: <199808081633.AA24028@lafn.org> >Now Nicholas: >> >> If it were someone other than the PJ writing this, I would spend more time >> and effort to find quotes to refute his notions. PJ: >The old "I could refute you if I wanted to, but you're not >deserving of the honor" routine. NW: Respect has two general meanings. 1) simple attention or notice 2) esteem or honor. So, yes, I do not respect your *writings or notions* on either count. You, I do not know. We met once in 1984? with no introduction and again (with intros) in 92. The latter one I have little recollection of. PJ: >Why do you feel the need to consistently express it in the >strongest terms for years and years? Frankly, Nicholas, in 44 >years I have never seen the look of pure hatred from anyone >(well, say 35 years since I wouldn't remember if it happened in >early childhood) I saw in your eyes in San Diego in 1992. Damn >scary. All over some books. NW: What hatred you see, write or think with I (unfortunately) can do nothing about -- nor did I supply it. I oppose your ideas & words about HPB & Theosophy with the same vigor I do as those goofy guys & gals, Bailey, Leadbeater, Creme, Prophet et al. I much prefer to support Theosophy positively, but I will point out the sappy, stupid or uninspired versions of it. NW: > But somewhere beyond he and I and >> everyone is our Divine Nature, to which I prostrate. My personality, our >> personalities -- all deserve little attention and as little respect -- >> most of the time. PJ: >Which isn't the same as a license to *dis*respect. No -- but it is a spiritual requirement. The personal world, inner and outer, must be given only the minimum respect or attention and not held in high esteem. To focus clearly & intently on the higher requires not doing same to the lower. Best, -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 13:02:34 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 13:55:48 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: "Conscious" Message-ID: <35CC9124.B2923A88@sprynet.com> References: jakej@henry-net.com wrote: > Tony writes: > >"No conscious sex-action of any kind"? Why put in > >"conscious"? > >Wouldn't an unconscious sex-action be the same? > > >Masters are conscious 24 hours per day? To what > >extent would lanoos, or > >even chelas be tending in this direction? > I put in "conscious" to exclude onanism, which > many think is still "celibacy." And yes, you're right the > direction is to being able to control your dreams also. (Quotes edited solely to remove excess blank lines and signatures) Note that the even the Adepts are not Adepts 24 hours a day (I forget where it says this in the Mahatma Letters, and am too lazy to look it up right now). It is also at least implied in the Mahatma Letters that in order to remain in physical human form, they must generate a certain amount of personal karma (probably why Moria had a pipe, for example). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 13:20:44 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 19:11:49 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <000301bdc2f8$0303caa0$a28bf2c2@bazzer> In-Reply-To: <35CB2CDF.984A9696@usa.net> Importance: Normal Bjorn wrote: > > In dozen of cases, C > > Leadbeater contradicted Mrs Blavatsky. As phantasy contradicts reality. > That could mean that L is right and B is wrong, or both are > wrong, right? Or is > B always right, by definition? A tree is known by its fruit. Let us examine: (a) HPB: "The Secret Doctrine", voluminous other works/articles, selfless/tireless devotion to Truth/Brotherhood, Their *direct* Agent etc. etc. etc.. (b) CWL: Bishops, robes and candlestick holders; a *religion* (Liberal Catholic, too boot!); a few fuzzy 'visions' from the astral light and some pretty pictures of xyz Manu or other. Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer). From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 13:35:50 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 11:23:12 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: "Conscious" Message-ID: <35CC9790.4B66@azstarnet.com> References: <35CC9124.B2923A88@sprynet.com> Bart, >From where do you get this funny spelling of the Master's name: Moria? Daniel Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > jakej@henry-net.com wrote: > > Tony writes: > > >"No conscious sex-action of any kind"? Why put in > > >"conscious"? > > >Wouldn't an unconscious sex-action be the same? > > > > >Masters are conscious 24 hours per day? To what > > >extent would lanoos, or > > >even chelas be tending in this direction? > > I put in "conscious" to exclude onanism, which > > many think is still "celibacy." And yes, you're right the > > direction is to being able to control your dreams also. > (Quotes edited solely to remove excess blank lines and signatures) > > Note that the even the Adepts are not Adepts 24 hours a day (I forget > where it says this in the Mahatma Letters, and am too lazy to look it up > right now). It is also at least implied in the Mahatma Letters that in > order to remain in physical human form, they must generate a certain > amount of personal karma (probably why Moria had a pipe, for example). > > Bart Lidofsky > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 13:37:54 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 19:11:47 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Disrespect vs. disagreement Message-ID: <000201bdc2f8$01ef9b80$a28bf2c2@bazzer> In-Reply-To: <199808081449.KAA25612@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Importance: Normal Paul J wrote: > > There is a difference between disrespect and giving an honest opinion. > > Absolutely. But you seem to think that I lack the ability to > discriminate between the two, No such thought entered the head. > > There is a tendency these day's to tread the road of least > resistance, along > > with fluffy-bunny political correctness where, it appears, one > should avoid > > "upsetting" anyone at all costs. Fortunately, this is not a > trend HPB had > > the slightest inclination for. > > You see that as fortunate. I see it as terribly unfortunate, > full of karmic consequences for the war-of-all-against-all that > the modern Theosophical movement has been, and continues to be on > the Net. Does apathy and selfish silence produce more conducive results? And, yes, maybe there is a "war". Did the opposing forces quietly slip into pralaya once HPB's body had turned to dust? > > A theosophist (or non theosophist, for that matter) should > speak freely and > > fearlessly with little or no personal regard for being liked/disliked; > > Should? Is that a moral should? Not sure what you mean. > It's a not a matter of being > liked or disliked but a matter of deliberately wounding people. > Or, more accurately perhaps, wilfully disregarding the potential > destructive effects of one's words. That should be so obvious as > to go without saying. Deliberately causing another (or others) harm, be this psychological or physical, for selfish, personal, motive/benefit (e.g. vengeance) is Black Magic. This is entirely different from a personality re-acting against a sprinkling of Truth which, in the process, causes itself to suffer or get irritated as a result of its own avidya and/or unwillingness to change. Motive is all important. Should, for example, the USA, Great Britain and others chucked all their munitions into the sea for fear of 'hurting' the Nazi war machine? "Inaction in a deed of mercy becomes an action in a deadly sin" (rough quote, Voice of the Silence). > > agreed-with/disagreed-with etc. How another acts - or *re*acts > - to this is > > largely a matter for themselves . . . and karma. > > The karma of the willful infliction of pain on others over > doctrinal matters is not enviable. Not that I've ever seen you > do this. Lost on that one. Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer) From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 15:05:44 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 13:56:56 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Practical theosophy Message-ID: <35CCAD88.CF2D4793@usa.net> Everybody Has A Dream Some years ago I took on an assignment in a southern county to work with people on public welfare. What I wanted to do was show that everybody has the capacity to be self-sufficient and all we have to do is to activate them. I asked the county to pick a group of people who were on public welfare, people from different racial groups and different family constellations. I would then see them as a group for three hours every Friday. I also asked for a little petty cash to work with as I needed it. The first thing I said after I shook hands with everybody was, “I would like to know what your dreams are.” Everyone looked at me as if I were kind of wacky. “Dreams? We don’t have dreams.” I said, “Well, when you were a kid what happened? Wasn’t there something you wanted to do?” One woman said to me, “I don’t know what you can do with dreams. The rats are eating up my kids.” “Oh,” I said. “That’s terrible. No, of course, you are very much involved with the rats and your kids. How can that be helped?” “Well, I could use a new screen door because there are holes in my screen door.” I asked, “Is there anybody around here who knows how to fix a screen door?” There was a man in the group, and he said, “A long time ago I used to do things like that but now I have a terribly bad back, but I’ll try.” I told him I had some money if he would go to the store and buy some screening and go and fix the lady’s screen door. “Do you think you can do that?” “Yes, I’ll try.” The next week, when the group was seated, I said to the woman, “Well is your screen door fixed?” “Oh, yes,” She said. Then we can start dreaming, can’t we?” She sort of smiled at me. I said to the man who did the work, “How do you feel?” He said, “Well, you know, it’s a very funny thing. I’m beginning to feel a lot better.” That helped the group to begin to dream. These seemingly small successes allowed the group to see that dreams were not insane. These small steps began to get people to see and feel that something really could happen. I began to ask other people about their dreams. One woman shared that she always wanted to be a secretary. I said, “Well, what stands in your way?” (That’s always my next question.) She said, “I have six kids, and I don’t have anyone to take care of them while I’m away.” “Let’s find out,” I said. “Is there anybody in this group who would take care of six kids for a day or two a week while this woman gets some training here at the community college?” One woman said “I got kids, too, but I could do that.” “Let’s do it,” I said. So a plan was created and the woman went to school. Everyone found something. The man who put in the screen door became a handyman. The woman who took in the children became a licensed foster care person. In 12 weeks I had all these people off public welfare. I’ve not only done that once, I’ve done it many times. By Virginia Satir from Chicken Soup for the Soul Copyright 1993 by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 15:22:44 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 13:05:20 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Bjorn on Leadbeater and other issues Message-ID: <35CCAF38.3304@azstarnet.com> References: <19980805152358.12891.qmail@hotmail.com> <35CB2CDF.984A9696@usa.net> Bjorn, Let me jump into the middle of this discussion, since you have raised some good issues. I will ask you some questions in order to try to understand where you are coming from. Govert and others can also chime in! I ASSUME that you believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P. Blavatsky? Some of these claims are: That she was the messenger of a certain Association of Adepts and that she was sent into the outer world to give out the ancient teachings of Theosophia. That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot Hoomi and several other initiates. That she was a tulku and the Mahatmas used her as an instrucment for various purposes. That Morya and Koot Hoomi and several other adepts either dictated or wrote through her various portions of her writings especially Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. That these adepts were flesh and blood human beings and from time to time visited Blavatsky, Henry Olcott and others either in the flesh or in their Mayavi Rupas. Do you accept any or all of these claims? If you believe the above, then consider the following: H P Blavatsky wrote more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy, etc. If we add to this, hundreds of published/unpublished letters of HPB, the letters of her Teachers as found in 3 published volumes and scattered in other published/unpublished sources, if we add all the historical evidence concerning HPB's life, her occult phenomena, testimony concerning her Teachers (during HPB's lifetime), etc., we have literally thousands of more pages of primary source material. >From this multitude of sources, a serious inquirer/student should be able to construct a pretty clear picture of what Blavatsky and her Teachers taught, the nature of the relationship between Blavatsky and her Teachers, what kind of Adept Association sponsored her work and what it means to be an Initiate of this Association. Do you agree with any of this? A SIDE NOTE: Unfortunately, IMO, far too many students haven't taken the time and effort to read and study all this material. What a pity! I am always encouraging those interested in Theosophy to go to Blavatsky's writings and ready and study them. Read enough of her writings so that one can understand what she is attempting to convey, etc. Don't naively believe or disbelieve, don't accept or reject what she writes, but try to UNDERSTAND what she is writing, what she is attempting to convey. How else can one come to know what any writer is trying to convey through the medium of words. Give Blavatsky a chance to give her thesis, her case. . . . If you believe what the Masters say in their letters, then HPB was a very unique individual. I'll quote just two extracts to illustrate this statement. "This state of hers [HPB's] is intimately connected with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European *body* upon European soil to serve as a connecting link. . . ." Koot Hoomi in an 1881 letter to A.P. Sinnett ". . . We employ agents---the best available. Of these for the past thirty years the chief [agent] has been the personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and very troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come---and your theosophists should be made to understand it. . . . *With occult matters she has everything to do.* We have *not* abandoned her; she is *not* 'given over to chelas. She is *our direct agent*. . . . I have also noted your thoughts about 'The Secret Doctrine'. Be assured that what she has not *annotated* from scientific and other works, we have given or *suggested* to her. Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of other theosophists *was corrected by me, or under my instruction*. It is a more valuable work than its predecessor, an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to come." Extract from Koot Hoomi's letter to Henry Olcott, August 1888. Olcott received this letter in his cabin on board the S.S. Shannon which was sailing on the Mediterrean and heading for Brindisi, Italy. Blavatsky was at the time in London. I could give more on this subject but will stop with these two extracts. Do you accept what the Master KH says about HPB? As I said at the beginning, I assume you probably accept most of the above. Maybe not. Please correct me if I am wrong. If would also be helpful to know why you don't accept any of the above. Now let us briefly consider HPB's infallibility. She never claimed to be infallible. Nor did her Teachers. But there is a huge difference/gap between being infallible on the one hand and being UNRELIABLE. Also any person who takes the time and effort to read the 10,000+ pages of Blavatsky's published writings can, more or less, determine what the basic teachings of Theosophy are. From her early writings to her later ones, one can find definite *recurring* themes, ideas, concepts, teachings (call them whatever). And if you read the letters of the Masters, especially THE MAHATMA LETTERS, you can identify the same RECURRING teachings. Do you agree with this? So as David Green comments, we are not concerned with the infallibility of HPB's writings and teachings, but with how reliable they are. No, HPB has no monopoly on the truth, but that doesn't mean that her writings are unreliable nor does that necessarily mean that her books are full of major errors of theosophical doctrine. In Part II of this posting,I will deal with the following: After Madame Blavatsky died, it is a historical fact that literally dozens of people have claimed to be in contact with her Adepts and have claimed to be the new messenger of the Mahatmas. Hundreds and hundreds of books have been written by all these various latter-day messengers. Bjorn, I would appreciate your views on any of the above. Do you accept Blavatsky's major claims? If you have reservations, can you briefly describe them. As I said at the beginning of my posting, Govert and others should feel free to express their views. Thanking everyone in advance for their input. Daniel Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > > David Green wrote: > > > I've > > studied "Theosophy vs > > Neo-Theosophy" & discussed it with > > C Leadbeater students. If you > > believe Leadbeater's teachings, then > > you don't understand Mrs Blavatsky's > > books. > > Or maybe you don't agree with everything Blvatsky writes. Maybe you think that > she does not have monopoly on truth. (And neither has Leadbeater, of course). > > > In dozen of cases, C > > Leadbeater contradicted Mrs Blavatsky. > > That could mean that L is right and B is wrong, or both are wrong, right? Or is > B always right, by definition? > > > In many instances Leadbeater reads like > > comic book fantasy. > > > Obtain Thomas book & > > do some rational thinking. > > To me it seems you mean by rational thinking: "Do not believe in anything that > contradicts Blavatsky". > > Bjorn From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 17:02:34 1998 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:59:53 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Bjorn on Leadbeater and other issues Message-ID: <001601bdc317$e08f6540$1c7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >I ASSUME that you believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P. >Blavatsky? Some of these claims are: > >That she was the messenger of a certain Association of Adepts and that >she was sent into the outer world to give out the ancient teachings of >Theosophia. > This can be taken two ways: an exoteric "association" of physical Adepts and an esoteric one such as the Brotherhood of Compassion as described by G de Purucker. I am quite convinced that she was of the latter. Whether of the former (a physical group of living Adepts) or not I am sceptical and don't much care one way or another. >That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot >Hoomi and several other initiates. > I think that we all must agree to this. The real question is whether these two individuals were actually members of a group of Adepts (they do not come off as traditional gurus, thats for sure). >That she was a tulku and the Mahatmas used her as an instrucment for >various purposes. > I accept her as a tulku, in which case her "mathatmas" were likely astral. >That Morya and Koot Hoomi and several other adepts either dictated or >wrote through her various portions of her writings especially Isis >Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. > The way she describes the procedure, they were not physically present when they dictated to her. Thus she was a "channeler" of sorts. >That these adepts were flesh and blood human beings and from time to >time visited Blavatsky, Henry Olcott and others either in the flesh or >in their Mayavi Rupas. > Yes, but were they organized or just acting as individual tutors? >Do you accept any or all of these claims? If you believe the above, >then consider the following: > >H P Blavatsky wrote more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy, etc. If we add >to this, hundreds of published/unpublished letters of HPB, the letters >of her Teachers as found in 3 published volumes and scattered in other >published/unpublished sources, if we add all the historical evidence >concerning HPB's life, her occult phenomena, testimony concerning her >Teachers (during HPB's lifetime), etc., we have literally thousands of >more pages of primary source material. > Yeah. I have waded through most of it over the last 30 years. But I have read that she enjoyed pulling legs and often wrote with her tongue in her cheek. >>From this multitude of sources, a serious inquirer/student should be >able to construct a pretty clear picture of what Blavatsky and her >Teachers taught, the nature of the relationship between Blavatsky and >her Teachers, what kind of Adept Association sponsored her work and what >it means to be an Initiate of this Association. Do you agree with any >of this? > No, I don't think so. The nature of the relationship between her Masters is confusing and in contention even today. The "Adept Association" was very likely a loose group of a handful of individuals. She never served a guru as a chela in the traditional sense (as described in traditional Hinduism or Buddhism nor as described by herself). >A SIDE NOTE: Unfortunately, IMO, far too many students haven't taken >the time and effort to read and study all this material. What a pity! > Why should they? I did so, because I enjoyed it. But most of her material can be condensed into just a few words (which is what Judge himself did). It is also painfully evident to me that two people can read and study her writings and get far different conclusions and worldviews (I think that she wrote this way on purpose--let s/he who has ears, and so on). >I am always encouraging those interested in Theosophy to go to >Blavatsky's writings and ready and study them. Good idea. >Read enough of her >writings so that one can understand what she is attempting to convey, >etc. This can't ever happen. I have discovered by communications on theos-l and theos-world that we all interpret her material differently. > Don't naively believe or disbelieve, don't accept or reject what >she writes, but try to UNDERSTAND what she is writing, what she is >attempting to convey. How else can one come to know what any writer is >trying to convey through the medium of words. Give Blavatsky a chance >to give her thesis, her case. . . . > Just what is her case? And how does this case apply to us today? I suspect that we would each answer questions such as these differently. >If you believe what the Masters say in their letters, then HPB was a >very unique individual. I'll quote just two extracts to illustrate this >statement. > If you require "belief" then you are saying that Theosophy is just another religion. I find direct confirmation of her ideas as I go through my life else I would have left Theoosphy long ago. >"This state of hers [HPB's] is intimately connected with her occult >training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to >gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of >fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only >opportunity to send out a European *body* upon European soil to serve >as a connecting link. . . ." Koot Hoomi in an 1881 letter to A.P. >Sinnett Here your quote touches on a little problem area that we discussed awhile back--Tibet. Are her Masters Tibetan? If not, then why go there to "train?" We now know exactly how Tibetan training takes place. David-Neel spent years in training there, while HPB spent what? A month? I am always amazed that these "Masters" did not offer such an opportunity to David-Neel. > >". . . We employ agents---the best available. This statement right here bothers me because traditional Hindu and Buddhist gurus and occult organizations did not employ "agents." They do not use missionary tactics like HPB's Masters did with her. It is just this kind of thing that leans me to accept Paul Johnson's thesis about her Masters. >She is *our direct agent*. . . Can you give me one other instance of such an "agent?" Ramakrishna did send his student (Vivekananda) to the West, but there was never any suggestion of a secret organization that he was the sole conduit to. > >Do you accept what the Master KH says about HPB? > With reservation, yes. >Now let us briefly consider HPB's infallibility. >She never claimed to be infallible. Nor did her Teachers. But there is >a huge difference/gap between being infallible on the one hand and being >UNRELIABLE. > I don't see the difference. If someone is not infallible, then they can make a mistake and say or write something that is wrong. Then they are no longer 100% reliable, are they? >Also any person who takes the time and effort to read the 10,000+ pages >of Blavatsky's published writings can, more or less, determine what the >basic teachings of Theosophy are. This sounds pretty clear, but folks on theos-l and theos-world have been arguing this point for years now and still no definitive "basic teachings" have been agreed to. As I recall, Don de Gracia made a nice Theosophical help program for Windows that never even mentioned reincarnation or karma or cycles, which to me seem like the three hard-core teachings to me. > From her early >writings to her later ones, one can find definite *recurring* themes, >ideas, concepts, teachings (call them whatever). And if you read the >letters of the Masters, especially THE MAHATMA LETTERS, you can identify >the same RECURRING teachings. Do you agree with this? > Yes, but the details of those themes are vague and interpretive. >So as David Green comments, we are not concerned with the infallibility >of HPB's writings and teachings, but with how reliable they are. No, >HPB has no monopoly on the truth, but that doesn't mean that her >writings are unreliable nor does that necessarily mean that her books >are full of major errors of theosophical doctrine. > I think her writings are just fine. I have found a few nit-picks over the years, and some major ommisions, but I find her to be pretty reliable. However, that doesn't mean that I agree with her on every topic (the idea that sex is anathema to occult practice, is, IMHO, not only wrong but dangerous, for example). >After Madame Blavatsky died, it is a historical fact that literally >dozens of people have claimed to be in contact with her Adepts and have >claimed to be the new messenger of the Mahatmas. Hundreds and hundreds >of books have been written by all these various latter-day messengers. > I don't see what this has to do with HPB's writings or her Masters, but yes it does seem to have been a phenomenon. >Daniel Hopefully, Dan, this kind of material will get us off throwing stones at each other and back onto Theosophical themes. Thanks. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 17:32:34 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 17:29:50 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Universal e-mail plan Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980808172950.011c3270@mail.eden.com> Whether one recognizes or not, Internet is revolutionizing the field of communication. In a recent report in Computerworld, US is planning to provide a e-mail addresses for all Americans. This is similar to a proposal made in U.K some time ago. We can look for very unusal opportunities for communicating with everyone in the world in the future. Upsides: Instant communication with large numbers of people around the world. Extremely low cost of communication. Increase in the volume of communication. Increase in the velocity of communication. Unfiltered/uncensored instant communication. Ability to present Theosophy to a large number of people at very little cost. Instant distribution of information about the happenings in one part of the world to all parts of the world. Breaking the strangle hold on the communication by established organizations. Leveling of the field between the haves and have-nots. An individual can have the same communication power as a multimillion dollar organization. Leveling of the field for people with a variety of backgrounds and beliefs and opinions. Leveling of the field without any discrimination of caste, creed, sex, color or national origin. Interested individuals have immediate access to information at no or very little cost. No admission or donation needed to access information. And more........... Downsides: Organization which have thrived on controlling the channel of communication between it and its members, clients, customers will lost the control. Organizations which have thrived on censoring and editing of the distributed messages, will no longer be able to do it. Organizations with large budgets have to compete with poor-man/woman who are fired with enthusiasm for cause. Organizations find it difficult to silence its critics. For some organizations, the very purpose of their existence will evaporate. Individuals may have to face messages not to their personal liking. International organizations no longer will be able to limit the knowledge of the happenings in one country from getting broadcast to all other countries. Need to read messages not to our personal liking due to their contents or the vocabulary. And more........... Look for exciting developments inthe near future, mkr =============================================== Clinton backs universal e-mail plan August 7, 1998 Web posted at: 10:50 AM EDT by Tom Diederich (IDG) -- The Clinton administration wants all Americans to have an e-mail address to go along with their street address and is asking the U.S. Postal Service to deliver the project's backbone. The idea is to connect physical and electronic addresses using the nation's Internet "country code" -- the top-level ".us" domain. Then a company or government agency, for example, could send bills or bulletins to your electronic mailbox as well as your home. The administration said the move would "accelerate and universalize the growth of electronic commerce," according to the Postal Service. Every country has a top-level domain. In many countries, such as Japan, companies and other organizations incorporate their nation's top-level domain into their Web site addresses. ... The administration is looking ahead to the day when most Americans have access to the Internet or at least e-mail from their homes. "Everybody would have an e-mail address, and for those who cannot access it right now, it would be downloaded and sent to them through the mail" so that they could use it at a library or other facility with Internet access, Brennan said. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 18:16:48 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:52:25 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: "Conscious II" Message-ID: <35CCD6A9.6D6315DA@henry-net.com> >Tony writes: >>"No conscious sex-action of any kind"? Why put in >>"conscious"? >>Wouldn't an unconscious sex-action be the same? >>Masters are conscious 24 hours per day? To what >>extent would lanoos, or >>even chelas be tending in this direction? >>Tony -------------------------------------------------- > I put in "conscious" to exclude onanism, which >many think is still "celibacy." And yes, you're right the >direction is to being able to control your dreams also. > - Jake J. ===================================== That didn't make a dam bit of sense did it? I used "no conscious sex action of any kind" to exclude masturbation, but not to included wet-dreams (which people generally don't have much control over until and when they can control their dreams.) So in other words - Celibacy is no wacking off, no women (or men in women's case), but don't worry much about the wet-dreams. Is that plain enough?? - Jake J. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 19:02:41 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 17:52:41 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: How do you spell "celibacy?" Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980808175241.0079f950@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808081837.NAA30361@proteus.imagiware.com> Paul wrote: >Namaste, > >A wad of chewing gum: flexible, refreshing, and tasty too? Paul, you are sooooo cruel! I leave for a week, open up my mail, peruse the theos listings - and I come across the above. How could you do this to me? For years, I've wanted you, but kept silent due to present incarnation situations - and, yet, you post things implying how tasty you are. Men. Nice to have you back, Paul. (seriously) Oh, and by the way, gentlemen, as a woman, I find discussions about celibacy exchanged between males more than marvelous. . .gives me a foggy, fluffy feeling. People ask me all day why I have a continual simper on my face. I simply giggle, nod side-to-side, wave my hand, and utter "Theosophy." The "illustrious Kym Baby" (yo Darren) From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 20:17:34 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 20:08:13 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: How do you spell "celibacy?" Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980808200813.01349ea0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980808175241.0079f950@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808081837.NAA30361@proteus.imagiware.com> At 05:52 PM 8/8/1998 -0600, you wrote: >Paul wrote: > >>Namaste, >> >>A wad of chewing gum: flexible, refreshing, and tasty too? > >Paul, you are sooooo cruel! I leave for a week, open up my mail, peruse >the theos listings - and I come across the above. How could you do this to >me? For years, I've wanted you, but kept silent due to present incarnation >situations - and, yet, you post things implying how tasty you are. Men. > >Nice to have you back, Paul. (seriously) > >Oh, and by the way, gentlemen, as a woman, I find discussions about >celibacy exchanged between males more than marvelous. . .gives me a foggy, >fluffy feeling. People ask me all day why I have a continual simper on my >face. I simply giggle, nod side-to-side, wave my hand, and utter "Theosophy." > > >The "illustrious Kym Baby" (yo Darren) The traditional view is that celibacy is essential for spiritual progress and enlightenment. There is the contra view of Krishnaji which questions this. I will try to post Krishnaji's view on this which may be very relevant. mkr From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 21:50:50 1998 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 19:44:00 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: mercury is retrograde Message-Id: <199808090240.VAA29024@proteus.imagiware.com> One thing that I've heard from modern astrology is that when mercury is retrograde, that communications come undone and than snafus, mixups, and a comedy of errors readily ensue. We could be buying a computer part, planning a meeting, trying to call a friend, arranging a party, and mixup after mixup arises, until we're almost expecting everything to go wrong about us. I've noticed this effect in dozens of things happening in my life the past week. (Mercury went retrograde on July 30, and goes direct 3:29 PM PST on August 23rd.) There may be some effect on the discussions on the list too, where well-intentioned communications lead to compounding misunderstandings, mistrust, and anger. I think that I'll hold off any major writing projects or other projects regarding important communications for a couple of weeks until this blows over. I have lots of other stuff to do; now may be a good time to give important communications a rest. At some point, it would be valuable to discuss what are the central theosophical doctrines, so that we can understand just what Blavatsky was trying to teach. We might say, "this is the basic idea, as taught in Theosophy," and go on and say, "and I agree or disagree and think this other idea is more appealing." We'd make a distinct between our talking about the basic theosophical ideas and our own interpretations or personal views. Why? So it's possible for new people to have some change of finding out something of the theosophical ideas we sometimes like to study, and not merely get a statistical sampling of an odd assortment of diverse views on metaphysics, views ranging from the inane to the most brilliant, but on the average being a little disappointing at times. Now, given that mercury is retrograde, I'll be waiting to be misunderstood in creative and unexpected ways ... -- Eldon From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 23:32:34 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 14:53:00 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: theos-talk@theosophy.com Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980809145300.007a7cc0@mail.iprolink.co.nz> Would somebody on this list like to discuss some of the really significant issues that K. Paul Johnson brought up (a couple of them are quoted below) and leave the ad-hominem mode of operation where it belongs? The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. today. Come on, David Green, Nicholas Weeks and others. How about some thoughtful comments, insights, questions, quotes etc on this one? I think you guys can see things other than spades in this world, and know their names too. Murray Quoting K.P.J. >In short she takes an *abundant* >cultural resource and redefines it in terms of extreme scarcity >and inaccessibility-- while positioning herself in the catbird >seat as the only intermediary between the remote authorities and >their aspiring chelas. > [snip] >When HPB becomes the go-between for aspiring chelas of *her* >particular gurus, a whole different set of circumstances is >found. The identities of the gurus are secret, access to them is >tightly controlled and under mysterious circumstances (i.e. the >astral post office), there are no clearcut social norms defining >mutual obligations and roles, in short very little of the >relationship between Sinnett and K.H., for example, corresponds >to any historical precedent of guru/chela relations. It is only >to be expected that such a relationship, wrenched out of every >traditional context, was unworkable in virtually every case in >which it was tried. From ???@??? Sat Aug 8 23:47:34 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 16:08:08 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Karma - a current view Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980809160808.007a2850@mail.iprolink.co.nz> Hi everybody This is a reply to John Vorstermans of the New Zealand theos-nz discussion list but I thought it might be worth posting here too. --------------------------------------- The phrase "cause and effect" has become a little like a tight garment that a child has outgrown. It is a convenient way of thinking, of course, but does rather force things into a single artificial role (ie as a cause or an effect) and separate them from each other in our minds. Reality is more like a continuous sequence of states unfolding one into another through processes, rather like the pattern of currents in a large river, only vastly more complex. The river is the consciousness-substance action-experience stuff or space, subtle and physical, that we find ourselves in all the time. We modify it all the time as we live, choose and act on all the levels of our being. We experience it all the time as our relationship with all around us and also as our interior makeup. That last one is sometimes the hardest to take... Karma, as a word, is sometimes used for the principle of law-like connectedness in this great river of life, and sometimes for the current itself. These are aspects of the idea of "action" which the word originally and simply meant. People frequently use it just for the causal aspect of the flow of reality. One of the key questions about karma is just how predictable an outcome is, and I think this is crucial to John's message. The first point is that, as in a current, the direction of flow is easy to predict over short distances but harder at greater distances because of the way currents diffuse and other currents come in to bear on them. It is more complicated than that, however, because of the acausal principle which has been discovered in recent work in chaos theory on large complex systems, and because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the quantum theory of things at the atomic and sub-atomic scale. These basically mean that even if you know the exact state of a "cause", the exact nature of its "effect" is not accurately predictable, in ways appropriate to the scale of size, period of time etc. And that's just in the physical world. Bring in the superphysical worlds with their intimate relationship between consciousness and substance, and the whole situation becomes vastly more complex still. The result is that there is no such thing as pure unalloyed determinism. No karma is utterly unchangeable. It can always be modified, if only a little. Without going into chaos theory in detail (which I don't exactly have a PhD in anyway), when you have a very complex system such as the global weather, a very slight input or change at one point can lead to a radically different change of the state of the system, out of all proportion to the input, when the system is in a state of relative instability, ie a condition where it can very easily go one way or the other. A thin book standing on its edge is readily pushed over one way or the other. One way could be just onto the table top, the other could be over the edge onto the cat's saucer of milk. That will probably start another thread of discussion. I think the karmic field is similar; some outcomes are strongly determined by something in the past which has set up a major current with a lot of momentum, while others unfold into a big result from a tiny input. So you could have a similar "accident" happen to two diffent people and one could be the almost inevitable result of a distant major "cause" while the other could be the result of some trivial, local cause. This is one reason to be careful what we say to people with an illness, say. Sometimes well-meaning people will say "Oh, you must have done something terrible in the past to have this problem now." But what cruelty it can be, to say this! And so downright ill-informed. There's a more fundamental reason to be careful with what we say about karma, too; we just plain don't know most of what's going on. You know the saying that one has to be of the status of an adept before one can understand karma fully. As to how superphysical currents precipitate out into physical events - well, that's too hard! Maybe, however, chaos theory and quantum theory between them give us some chinks in the apparent armour of the physical world for change to "miraculously" appear. Jung's synchronicity is relevant too, though my feeling is that it describes rather than explains. And maybe you've only got to move space for physical substance to follow it .... Material for several discussion threads there. So I hope this sheds light on your question, John. I could blather on at greater length, but this isn't exactly a theosophical lecture :-) Murray At 10:10 AM 7/08/98 +1200, John Vorstermans wrote: >Hi Everyone. > >During our studies in Wellington of Patanjalis Yoga Sutras we have been >looking at "Karma" and "Cause and Effect" with some detail. In our >studies we have used 4 different translations of the Yoga Sutras to give us >a good cross-reference and hopefully a fuller understanding of the Sutras >(or seed thoughts). The Yoga Sutras being a practical exposition of yoga >which most modern schools of Yoga have developed from today. > >Over the last few weeks Karma has been one of the topics of discussion >along with "Cause and Effect". There seems to be some difference between >to two, Karma being generally a result of the Samaskaras or latent >impressions stored in our Ego (causal body) from past lives, these >impressions coming together to form a vehicle for future lives so that they >may be worked through what we know as karma. > >However "Cause and Effect" or so it seems is different. There appears to >be causes that happen in a current life as well as their effect that is not >Karma. It might be likened to perhaps to a child putting a hand in a fire >with the effect of pain and burnt skin. > >Of course both Karma and "Cause and Effect" ultimately are to give us >experience. > >Has anyone any thoughts or understanding on the difference between the two? From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 08:47:36 1998 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 06:36:58 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: -- Mercury retrograde -- What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-ID: <000301bdc39b$f0eaaa60$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 9th 1998 Dallas suggests: Dear Eldon: MERCURY RETROGRADE Your observation about the possible effect of retrograde Mercury on communications and our psychic natures is interesting. I recall asking a wise friend many years ago about the effect of the planets considered astrologically and was given to understand that the effect noted down through the ages was an environmental change which affected everything to some extent but did not RULE it. In other words: the effect obtains, but the individual's FREE-WILL made us, humans, independent of any such general effect. The advantage of knowing what general effect pertained was that , as you say, become aware of it, but we are NOT ruled by it. THEOSOPHY -- WHAT IS ITS NATURE AND SCOPE ? As to your suggestion that we concentrate on ascertaining what HPB taught -- as to what THEOSOPHY actually is and means -- is a valuable one, and we all need to refresh our understanding. As far as we are concerned, HPB was the pioneer. Around her writings (beginning with ISIS UNVEILED) the Theosophical Society studies and works. She was the latest of a long line of wise and honorable predecessors delegated by the Adept Brotherhood [ of which she speaks -- see ISIS II ppp. 98 - 107 ] to again present to mankind those truths and laws that relate to his capacities and relation with the environment that reincarnation brings him to under the general laws of Nature.. Why not start a "round-robin" on this ? I offer some of the ideas that seem pivotal to me : 1. Theosophy is a system of philosophical and scientific inquiry into our own natures. 2. Theosophy considers that all living beings are in themselves (as conscious intelligences of various degrees of experience ) immortals -- just as the "atom" is an indestrucible and eternal "being" according to our own Science. It is used as a basis for all physics, chemistry and is defined chiefly by those of its properties which can be defined chiefly by mathematics. So why not extend the concept to include all of us "humans ?" 3. Theosophy includes our psychology, our mental capacities, and our physical environment (including the present body and personality we live in). 4. Theosophy has evolved a vocabulary. The exchanges between its students is facilitated by a knowledge of this vocabulary, as each helps the others in augmenting their understanding and refining their perceptions. WE are all in search of "Truth." 5. Theosophy is persuasive rather than argumentative, and does not recommend any "blind belief" or acceptance on "authority". It therefore provides examples both historical and current to substantiate its ideas and views. Since it draws from the whole of experience it is eclectic, non-dogmatic, and uses analogy and correspondence to support those examples of fact that it offers. It relies heavily on the history of past events and research, which it claims is impacted imperishably in the "Astral Light" (the electro-magnetic medium, or lattice-work that envelops and underlies the whole of Nature and every being in it, including mankind). 6. H. P. Blavatsy was, for us, that Pioneer who wrote the material around which the Theosophical Society, and its derivatives work and function. A study and a reading of THE KEY TO THEOSPHOPHY is highly recommended to those who desire to participate in an interchange of Theosophical ideas, information and questions. The "KEY" provides a vocabulary and organizes the areas of research that are of interest to students of Theosophy. 7. Theosophy has some definitions to offer as a result of study over many years of, by those who employ it. We can all profit by that. If we read the KEY, we will be able to find those ideas that the T S (Theosohical Society), U L T (United Lodge of Theosophists), etc... study together. 8. Theosophy is both cross- and multi-disciplinarian, speaking of it academically. Since it is age-old, it includes information and observations on every discipline of research. HPB wrote over 100 years ago, and since then students of Theosophy observe that the world of Academia has gradually been making use of Theosophical information [ Example: Albert Einstein kept a well used copy of THE SECRET DOCTRINE on his desk for ready reference. ]. It is possible to show that Science, Psychology, Religion, Physics and Chemistry, etc., have all adopted many of those ideas that HPB presented in her books and articles. 9. Theosophy takes into account the unknown laws of Nature [ studied in the past by the members of the Adept Brotherhood -- some of whom are called the Mahatmas (Great Souls) ]. HPB has offered us some details relating to those hidden and secret Laws that are well-known to the Aepts and which operate in Nature, in ourselves, and around us. 10. Science, and the development of knowledge are gradually catching up to these facts, which are already known to deep students of Theosophy. ==================== If one desires to find out what Theosophy considers to be fundamental ideas one might consult the opening chapter of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. I, pp 14 - 20: 1. The Universe is "without walls" either in size or in time. SPACE, as an abstract concept, represents its totality, and its reality. It consists of "CONSCIOUS UNITS." Manifestation, Evolution periodically occupies the vast stage of living from time to time, and periodically these are withdrawn into quiescence and rest -- similar to our sleeping at night. At the time of a "new manifestation" the "units" reawaken (or, reincarnates) to resume their/its interrupted evolutionary growth, each at the level from which it stopped during the recent "sleep." NATURE as a word, is often used to indicate the intricate web of living that envelops each Conscious Unit, of which mankind is the epitome. "SPIRIT" is considered to be the underlying ABSOLUTENESS which is undefinable. It is an "eternal background." Under the LAW OF KARMA everything manifests periodically. Sleep and reincarnation are examples of this in operation. 2. LAW envelops each and every aspect of living and conscious being, from the "atom" to the vastest Galaxy, every apparently independent "being" is inextricably involved in the awareness and living of every other being. The whole of "evolution" forms a vast inter-active WHOLE -- a "Plenum." Mankind, considered as units, represents that necessary stage of being where MIND (and its many faculties) is develped (and is developing in us). Humanity, mankind, is a necessary stage of development for the growth and experience of each of the individual MONADS. Hence each of us has as a core being interior to us, a MONAD (Immortal Spirit-Soul) which gives us our sense of Individuality; and in this manifested world-of-forms, our Personality. 3. EVOLUTION is a universal process whereby the "MONAD" ( Spirit-Soul or Atma-Buddhi) -- or, those individualized "rays" or "drops" of conscious being, obtain experience, become self-conscious (as in mankind) and fulfills its progress towards becoming Wise. [ Wisdom is defined as the obtaining of a complete vision of this universal process. It includes a realization of the immortality of each spirit-Soul. It includes a realization that the whole of Nature is constituted of innumerable CONSCIOUS UNITS. Each of thse is indestructible in itself. Each has the potential of adding to its range of perception.] Mankind represents all of us who are in the process of acquiring the power to use our Minds, to think, and to discern the differnece between emotion and ratiocination. GOAL OF EVOLUTION The "goal" to which our attention is drawn is that of a perfect knowlege (wisdom) of all the many details of Natural Law and being. In order to obtain any knowledge or power that is extra-ordinary, we have to comply with the Laws of nature relative to the use of that power or law. Theosophy teaches that in each member of the Fellowship of mankind reposes a key to Universal Wisdom. It can be used constructively as well as destructively depending on motive. Nature as a whole is constructive -- growing. It therefore demands of those who would become Wise, complete harmlessness. They have to demonstrate that under no circumstances will they employ "power" for personal ends. Unselfishness, altruism, compassion and generosity are the hallmarks of those to whom Nature entrusts knowledge and power. There is no other way that ensures permanency to our growth and advance as conscious units Since we are, each of us an Immortal, and since we deal all the time with others who are also immortals, the Karma of relationships operates. KARMA Karma is the active educator, the universal Instructor. Impersonally it brings to us the results of all our choices. As a result we receive, in the circumstances of our advancing lives, effects that we rate as "good," or "bad." Once that we realize that we fashion our own "fate," we begin to take active steps to regulate our feelings, our thoughts and or actions or deeds. Thus we are in effect our own teachers. Vicarious atonement does not operate. It is selfish and vicious. It denies as a concept any full or total repartion to victims. Nature in her justice is impartial. Each one of us knows when he/she is about to make a harmful choice. At that moment we are alse aware that we cannot "escape" the consequences. Nature as the Law of Karma administers educative (not punitive) conditions which bring us (as Personalities) to realize the hurt and anguish that our selfish choices of the past have imposed on others. SPIRIT: UNIVERSAL AND IDEAL Theosophy thus treaches the Universality of Spirit as a common base for all of us. We cannot "escape" from its purview. Interior to each of us is a "ray" of the ONE SPIRIT. It is that which we call the MONAD and it gives to us our sense of being an Individual, and of living in a Personality. These two are distinct foci for our conscious living. Their presence in each of us gives us the power to think, to discuss, to hold a conference with ourselves, and finally, they show themselves as our "Voice of Conscience," as our "Intuition." BROTHERHOOD Brotherhood represents a key idea of cooperative and inter-relative life -- a condition that we are all involved in, and which we cannot escape from, or isolate ourselves from. ============================= These are a few of the ideas that I consider to be primary and useful -- and these are to be found offered as basic in Theosophy. No doubt our friends and correspondents will have found other aspects to offer and to emphasize for our common growth. Best wishes to all, Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 08, 1998 8:02 PM > From: "Eldon B Tucker" > Subject: mercury is retrograde From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 09:47:34 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 09:32:05 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980809093205.01b548f0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <000301bdc39b$f0eaaa60$03e78ccc@nwc.net> >These are a few of the ideas that I consider to be primary and useful -- and >these are to be found offered as basic in Theosophy. > >No doubt our friends and correspondents will have found other aspects to >offer and to emphasize for our common growth. > >Best wishes to all, Dallas > Dear Dallas: Nice to see back. Let me add my 0.02. To me at least, Theosophy presents a most comprehensive account of man and the universe, even though at present it may be a working hypothesis. I have not seen anything else which is better. I am grateful for finding Theosophy. mkr From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 10:32:34 1998 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 11:32:24 EDT From: "Richard Ihle" Subject: Re: Disrespectful discourse Message-ID: <6402cf8d.35cdc109@aol.com> << PJ wrote: >It's hard not to notice, upon returning to this list after being >away for a time, that there's a continuing presence, in >Theosophical discourse, of expressions of emphatic disrespect for >others with different views. gschueler@netgsi.com writes: >I have noticed that Theos-World is getting more and more like > Theos-l was before I left it. Maybe its a Theosophical thing and all > nets will eventually go this way? Maybe its time for me to go back >to Theos-l for awhile where things have quieted down? Hi, Jerry. I read Paul's and your posts about "dissing" etc. with interest and 100% agreement. One of the amazing things to me as primarily a reader of these lists is the unusual number of at least superficially unpleasant people who have seemed to show up over the years. I mean, one doesn't generally run into so many of such types in one's daily life, does one? (At least I don't seem to.) One of the reasons I was hoping to attend the TS convention this year was the chance of meeting a few of the more sarcastic/ridiculing/insulting people ("Pauly," "Paul-baby" etc.) and see if they still tend to act the same way once their verbal targets were right in front of them and no longer have to jump into their modems and crawl perhaps a thousand miles through phone line in order to kick their bad-mannered behinds. . . . Actually, I have concluded that most of these people (and I have no problem whatever with those who merely but fairly fight tooth-and-nail for their positions) must use different personalities in order to get along in daily life. Otherwise, of course, their all-to-quickly-resorted-to strategy of trying to take away the basic dignity of those they contend with wouldn't make them so popular with friends, families, and co-workers, would it? Naturally, since in my latter years I seem to have only one subject I ever feel inclined to talk about any more, I blame everything on the corrupt definition of ~Theosophy~ which seems to be ever-increasingly supplanting the general meaning (according to ENCARTA): ". . . Any religio-philosophical system purporting to furnish knowledge of God, and of the universe in relation to God, by means of direct mystical intuition, philosophical inquiry, or both." By condoning the "common usage" definition of ~Theosophy~ as a synonym for HPB's Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis, it may be that we now have created little more than a super-artifact which even the Spiritually impoverished and grossly unSelf-realized can easily fight for or against, by fair method or foul. In other times, perhaps Theosophists honored one another to a greater degree simply because there was more of a mutual understanding about the profoundness of the Mysteries being approached . . . and how nascent and blunt the personal tools for approaching those Mysteries still were in most individuals, including oneself. Thus, a person who has perhaps spent much of his or her lifetime aspiring, struggling, making mistakes, trying again, etc.--all with the goal of developing mystical intuition and utilizing Spiritual consciousness--may be a little more tolerant of another struggler who may seem seriously off-track at the moment. Conversely, a ready-willingness to degrade another person by means of contumelious flippancy and safe-distance familiarity perhaps indicates that one has not yet really spotted the True Theosophical adventurer either in oneself or the in other person. Anyway, I hope you and Paul don't abandon theos-talk for a more genteel forum without telling me where you are going first. . . . Best wishes and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 12:17:34 1998 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:06:04 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Done that Message-Id: <199808091706.AA24089@lafn.org> >Would somebody on this list like to discuss some of the really significant >issues that K. Paul Johnson brought up (a couple of them are quoted below) >and leave the ad-hominem mode of operation where it belongs? > >The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached >today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. today. > >Come on, David Green, Nicholas Weeks and others. How about some thoughtful >comments, insights, questions, quotes etc on this one? I think you guys can >see things other than spades in this world, and know their names too. For myself I have written a review of one of PJ's books and spent enough of my few little grey cells in writing about his concepts. My view is that Paul Johnson does not (perhaps cannot) understand Theosophy or HPB. There are many, many people who, like Paul, do not accept HPB on her own terms -- probably the majority of those who have pondered on her and her Theosophy. At this point I am willing to point out to those new to HPB or Theosophy, that I think PJ is wrong headed on these topics and suggest people study HPB and her Gurus writings first -- and if they wish to save time and confusion, ignore PJ's writings. At some time in one's life you have to ponder on values to choose, then choose, then act on those values chosen. I still occasionally will debate, but I try to focus on questions and puzzlements from new students and not spend much time on beating dead squirrels. Best, -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 13:47:35 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 11:49:01 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Jerry Schueler on the Mahatmas Message-ID: <35CDEF1C.5C10@azstarnet.com> References: <001601bdc317$e08f6540$1c7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> ______________________________________________________________________ [1] Daniel Caldwell wrote: > >I ASSUME that you [Bjorn] believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P. > >Blavatsky? Some of these claims are: > > > >That she was the messenger of a certain Association of Adepts and that > >she was sent into the outer world to give out the ancient teachings of > >Theosophia. Jerry Schueler commented: > This can be taken two ways: an exoteric "association" of physical > Adepts and an esoteric one such as the Brotherhood of Compassion > as described by G de Purucker. I am quite convinced that she was > of the latter. Whether of the former (a physical group of living Adepts) or > not I am sceptical and don't much care one way or another. Daniel Caldwell replies: It is not clear to me what would be the real difference between an "exoteric" association and an "esoteric" one in this context. You seem skeptical of "a physical GROUP of living adepts." Paul Johnson and others also seem skeptical of an association of physical adepts. I really don't see what is so unbelievable in such a view. It would be understandable coming from a non-Theosophist or a person with anti-theosophical views, but to theosophists who accept many "unorthodox" things, it is hard to see what is so difficult about believing in an organized association of adepts. Here are a several historical items regarding the adept association: Henry Olcott testifies: "I have seen several Mahatmas---maybe six of them---both in their physical forms and in their astral bodies. . . . " Elsewhere he writes: "I know the Brothers to be living men and not spirits; and they have TOLD me that there are schools, under appointed adepts, where their Occult science is regularly taught." CAPS added. THERE ARE SCHOOLS. . . .that is, organized centers, ashrams, etc. where the Brothers congregate, etc. ________________________________________________________________ [2] Daniel Caldwell wrote: > >That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot > >Hoomi and several other initiates. Jerry Schueler commented: > I think that we all must agree to this. The real question is whether > these two individuals were actually members of a group of Adepts > (they do not come off as traditional gurus, thats for sure). Daniel Caldwell replies: Again, why are you so skeptical that these two individuals were "actually members of a group of Adepts"? I really don't understand on what such skepticism is based. **If you can accept the reality of several Mahatmas known by Madame Blavatsky, then why is it such a leap of faith to be open to the possibility that these Adepts worked together, etc. and were members of an association?** Again consulting the historical records, we find that Damodar Mavalankar gives testimony to the existence of the Adept association: ". . . . the next morning [Dec. 1883] . . . I had the good fortune of being sent for, and permitted to visit a Sacred *Ashram* where I remained for a few days in the blessed company of several of the much doubted MAHATMAS of Himavat and Their disciples. There I met not only my beloved Gurudeva [KH] and Col. Olcott's Master [M], but several others of the Fraternity, including One of the Highest. I regret the extremely personal nature of my visit to those thrice blessed regions, prevents my saying more of it. Suffice it that the place I was permitted to visit is in the HIMALAYAS, not in any fanciful Summer Land and that I saw Him in my own sthula sarira (physical body) and found my Master identical with the form I had seen in the earlier days of my Chelaship. Thus, I saw my beloved Guru [KH] not only as a *living* man, but actually as a young one in comparison with some other Sadhus of the blessed company, only far kinder, and not above a merry remark and conversation at times. Thus on the second day of my arrival, after the meal hour I was permitted to hold an intercourse for over an hour with my Master. . . . " Here we see Damodar speaking of a number of Adepts in one Ashram: the other Sadhus of the blessed company. . . .after the meal hour [maybe the adepts and some of their chelas were actually eating together!!], etc. etc. In private letters to William Judge, Damodar writes much about the "society" of the Mahatmas. He attended one of the Council sessions at which many Adepts were present. In a subsequent letter, Damodar writes to Judge that he was taken to the house of one of the Adepts in Sri Lanka. In my historical research I have even discovered the location of this incident. Damodar writes: "There in a little garden in front we found one of the Brothers sitting, I had seen him before in the Council Room [where a number of Adepts were gathered!!!] and it is to him that this place belongs. . . ." In another letter Damodar tells of his out of the body experience to the "Chief Central Place" of the Adept Fraternity. My research indicates that this place is located in the region just east-northeast of Ladakh in Western Tibet. Other theosophists in HPB's lifetime report having gone to this place. I realize that Paul Johnson considers Damodar's OOBE as a mere hallucination but having had veridical OOBEs myself, I can readily accept Damodar's account at face value. And RELEVANT to the above subject is what I wrote in my critique of Paul Johnson's thesis on M and KH: Johnson devotes a chapter of his work The Masters Revealed (pp. 59-62) to Olcott's encounter with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept. Johnson identifies Ooton Liatto with the Theosophical adept Hilarion Smerdis. He writes: ". . . in May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion ‘passed thro[ough] New York & Boston, thence thro[ough] California and Japan back.’. . .A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in HPB's diary [scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...describes meeting an adept....at 433 West 34th Street." (pp. 59-60) Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter (dated late 1875 or early 1876): "...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at the door---I said ‘come in’ and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had disappeared---I . . . looked out the window---and saw them turning the corner...." (Olcott’s account is given in full in Theosophical History, Jan., 1994.) Commenting on Olcott’s story, Johnson makes the following highly significant admission: "The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62) The point I want to make on what I said in my critique is that here we find Paul Johnson admitting the existence of two real adepts. Here are TWO adepts *associating* with each other, keeping each other's company. ****If this is admitted, then why is it so far-fetched to believe that they might have had other Adept associates???**** Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is probably Master Hilarion. Well, Hilarion (according to Olcott's diary) visited both HPB and him in Feb. 1881 in Bombay. He reportedly was on his way to Tibetan regions. Even KH mentions him in a Mahatma Letter. Again why is it so difficult to believe that Hilarion, his unnamed associate in New York, Koot Hoomi and OTHER adepts were part of an organized group of Initiates. And if we believe BOTH of Olcott's accounts on Hilarion then he was one to travel the world: New York. . . . India, Tibet. I would suggest that maybe Hilarion was going to the "Central Central Place" in Northwestern Tibet. I really don't understand a person's MINDSET that will accept individaul Theosophical adepts but won't accept the possibility that these adepts belong to a organized group. _______________________________________________________________________ [3] Daniel Caldwell wrote: > >That she was a tulku and the Mahatmas used her as an instrucment for > >various purposes. > > Jerry Schueler commented: > I accept her as a tulku, in which case her "mathatmas" were likely > astral. Daniel Caldwell replies: But why were her Mahatmas "likely astral"? By that I assume you mean entities with no physical bodies?? Couldn't they have physical bodies and still "overshadow" Madame Blavatsky? Is that so far-fetched? IN SUMMARY, my own historical research leads me to conclude that HPB's Masters and their association/society/fraternity had "ashrams" located in various parts of India, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Tibet as well as in other parts of the world. Jerry, I will try to deal with some of your other comments in a subsequent email. ________________________________________________________________________ From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 16:22:18 1998 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 14:11:39 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Bard's Way Message-Id: <199808092111.AA00603@lafn.org> SONNET 146 Poor soul, the centre of my sinful earth, Fooled by these rebel powers that thee array, Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth, Painting thy outward walls so costly gay? Why so large cost, having so short a lease, Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend? Shall worms, inheritors of this excess, Eat up thy charge? Is this thy body's end? Then, soul, live thou upon thy servant's loss, And let that pine to aggravate thy store; Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross; Within be fed, without be rich no more: So shalt thou feed on Death, that feeds on men, And Death once dead, there's no more dying then. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 17:52:49 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 16:36:06 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: #353 (spell "celibacy") Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980809163606.0079b7e0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808091400.JAA25098@proteus.imagiware.com> Doss wrote: >The traditional view is that celibacy is essential for spiritual progress >and enlightenment. There is the contra view of Krishnaji which questions >this. I will try to post Krishnaji's view on this which may be very relevant. I am often confused on why one would choose to incarnate as a "human" and then spend all one's time trying to avoid being a "human." Perhaps it is because so many humans think being a human is a "bad" thing and have assigned so many terrible attributes to what encompasses being a human. Sex between two consenting adults - sex that is loving, communicative, and mutually fulfilling is, in itself, an intercourse with the Divine. It helps one "grow," learn to share, learn to be attentive to the needs of others. Sex is an excellent instructor. . .why throw out this teacher? To declare celibacy "good" is to declare sex "bad." Human psychology, being what it is, is often immediately drawn to what is "forbidden." There are examples galore of "holy folk" eventually "succumbing" to their sexual drive - and then we have the sickening scenes of prostrating, guilt-ridden, angry people attempting to deal with their "sin." Since humans are born with hormones that encourage the sexual drive, it seems sex is only natural; the trick is learning how to develop the sexual drive so it serves only one's (and other's) well-being, not something to be ignored or avoided. It appears to me that those who have "mastered" their sexuality don't spend much time talking about it; much less going on about how it hinders spirituality. Those who have not dealt with their sexuality probably spend a great deal of time jumping up from sessions of meditation heading for buckets of ice in which to plunge their erect penis into - hardly a Divine scenario. Men, due to the big "T" hormone, appear to have a more difficult time with sexuality than women do. . .which is not a slam toward men, just a recognition of biological differences. The advocation of celibacy is also very detrimental for women - first, it strips them of the closeness they want from the men in their lives, and secondly, one way men deal with pledges of celibacy is to eliminate women from everything altogether. Men fear the "temptation" women bring and thus, forbade them from social, spiritual, and mental pursuits - the presence of women force men to deal with issues they would rather not deal with. And, oddly, people think that if they are never "tempted" they have "conquered" the problem. Wrong-O. (I have focused this post from the perspective of heterosexuals simply for ease of writing, but homosexuality is also factored in and applies). Due to historical interpretation through rather prudish eyes, I fear that much of what is written about celibacy is in gross error. There is also a great mistrust among the "holy folk" of "regular folk" - they worry that if the go-ahead is given to people regarding sex, people will be fornicating in the stores, the malls, the theatres, the parks, on the tops of the highest mountains. Before anyone can "lead or instruct" another in the art of Compassion, one must recognize what it means to be a human. . .and that means encouraging what is good in being a human. Sex, for mutual pleasure, is good - and a sexually fulfilled person is freed from the bondages of the struggles of fighting what is, essentially, a human need. This freedom opens the mind to other pursuits, and eventually, it may happen that the need for sex disappears altogether. But until then, believing that celibacy will lead one to "enlightenment" is asking for trouble, for that simple frustration - lack of really cool sex - will cause one to reincarnate if only to provide proper closure and understanding of an important part of being human. Bottom line: Don't die sexually frustrated. She has spoken. Kym From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 18:47:39 1998 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:36:32 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: General Message-Id: <199808092336.TAA15356@wopr.defnet.com> Murrary wrote: >The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts >can be approached >today is one of the most serious issues facing the >organizational T.S. today. ---------------------------------------------------- Personally, I don't think it should be worried about. We have the teachings of HPB, so the need to contact an adept of Blavatsky's lodge is not longer necessary to get teachings. 99.99% + of people don't need to meet one except for selfish or pruient reasons. I say don't worry about them, and work for humanity and one's own self for ten incarnations - then worry about it. ' And by that time one will probably realize that what is important is the message and not personal contacts. "Too much cant about Masters" as I think that 1900 letter to Annie Besant said. D. Caldwell wrote: >I really don't understand a person's MINDSET that will >accept individaul >Theosophical adepts but won't accept the possibility that >these adepts >belong to a organized group. ----------------------------------------------------- I think some just have a quirk of perversity. By being contrary as a general principle they get an ego-boost and for no other reason. I wonder why Dallas's posting was the only one I couldn't save to disk - I tried several times. Maybe a hack is on? Two recommended videos (R rating): "Where the Day Takes You" about a group of teenage runaways (or escapees as it may be..) and "Where the River Flows North" about a backwoods Individualist. ELDON: Did you say that they are retro-fitting the Mercury Rockets? - Jake J. " Beware of gift-givers! (One's after me now!)" From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 20:02:40 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 19:54:40 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: #353 (spell "celibacy") Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980810005440.0068c38c@mail.eden.com> You have wonderfully summarized the natural conditions that exist. But many formal schools which are supposed to lead one towards spiritual develpment traditionally treated sex as a no-no for spiritual unfoldment and has been the accepted norm for centuries and many in theosophical circles still believe it so. I have no problem in any one personally believing anything including tooth fairy. In any case, I will still try to post very succinct summary on the issue of celibacy, when much fuss was made on the question of physical relationship Krishnamurti had with the wife of his business manager (manager himself was declared as an initiate of the Great Mysteries during Besant/Leadbeater days before Krishnamurti disbanded the Order of the Star of the East). The relationship was of course consensual between two adults. mkr -------------- At 04:36 PM 8/9/98 -0600, you wrote: >Doss wrote: > >>The traditional view is that celibacy is essential for spiritual progress >>and enlightenment. There is the contra view of Krishnaji which questions >>this. I will try to post Krishnaji's view on this which may be very relevant. > >I am often confused on why one would choose to incarnate as a "human" and >then spend all one's time trying to avoid being a "human." Perhaps it is >because so many humans think being a human is a "bad" thing and have >assigned so many terrible attributes to what encompasses being a human. > >Sex between two consenting adults - sex that is loving, communicative, and >mutually fulfilling is, in itself, an intercourse with the Divine. It >helps one "grow," learn to share, learn to be attentive to the needs of >others. Sex is an excellent instructor. . .why throw out this teacher? > >To declare celibacy "good" is to declare sex "bad." Human psychology, >being what it is, is often immediately drawn to what is "forbidden." There >are examples galore of "holy folk" eventually "succumbing" to their sexual >drive - and then we have the sickening scenes of prostrating, guilt-ridden, >angry people attempting to deal with their "sin." Since humans are born >with hormones that encourage the sexual drive, it seems sex is only >natural; the trick is learning how to develop the sexual drive so it serves >only one's (and other's) well-being, not something to be ignored or avoided. > >It appears to me that those who have "mastered" their sexuality don't spend >much time talking about it; much less going on about how it hinders >spirituality. Those who have not dealt with their sexuality probably spend >a great deal of time jumping up from sessions of meditation heading for >buckets of ice in which to plunge their erect penis into - hardly a Divine >scenario. Men, due to the big "T" hormone, appear to have a more difficult >time with sexuality than women do. . .which is not a slam toward men, just >a recognition of biological differences. > >The advocation of celibacy is also very detrimental for women - first, it >strips them of the closeness they want from the men in their lives, and >secondly, one way men deal with pledges of celibacy is to eliminate women >from everything altogether. Men fear the "temptation" women bring and >thus, forbade them from social, spiritual, and mental pursuits - the >presence of women force men to deal with issues they would rather not deal >with. And, oddly, people think that if they are never "tempted" they have >"conquered" the problem. Wrong-O. (I have focused this post from the >perspective of heterosexuals simply for ease of writing, but homosexuality >is also factored in and applies). > >Due to historical interpretation through rather prudish eyes, I fear that >much of what is written about celibacy is in gross error. There is also a >great mistrust among the "holy folk" of "regular folk" - they worry that if >the go-ahead is given to people regarding sex, people will be fornicating >in the stores, the malls, the theatres, the parks, on the tops of the >highest mountains. Before anyone can "lead or instruct" another in the art >of Compassion, one must recognize what it means to be a human. . .and that >means encouraging what is good in being a human. > >Sex, for mutual pleasure, is good - and a sexually fulfilled person is >freed from the bondages of the struggles of fighting what is, essentially, >a human need. This freedom opens the mind to other pursuits, and >eventually, it may happen that the need for sex disappears altogether. > >But until then, believing that celibacy will lead one to "enlightenment" is >asking for trouble, for that simple frustration - lack of really cool sex - >will cause one to reincarnate if only to provide proper closure and >understanding of an important part of being human. > >Bottom line: Don't die sexually frustrated. > >She has spoken. > > >Kym > > > > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 9 21:32:39 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:27:40 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: (spell "celibacy") Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980809212740.0091d800@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980810005440.0068c38c@mail.eden.com> The issue of celibacy and spiritual progress has come up from time to time. While all of us know the traditional view, the revolutionary viewpoint comes from Krishnaji who grew up in the traditional theosophical environment. On this subject, here is an excerpt from a recent book by Mary Lutyens on Krishnamurti, where she discusses the issue of Celibacy as seen by Krishnaji. ..........mkr ===================================== And he [K] never "presented" himself as being celibate. According to the tenets of Leadbeater-Theosophy, celibacy was essential for any aspirant to the Path of Discipleship but K broke away entirely from Theosophy and its tenets in 1929 and thereafter often spoke publicly against celibacy. Here are a few quotations from his published talks to prove this point: "So-called holy men have maintained that you cannot come near God if you indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because beauty is associated with And again: "I think we should understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not chastity at all, for below the words the craving goes on and trying to suppress it in different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and denials, is essentially worldliness which is unchaste. All forms of resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a battlefield; and so life becomes not chaste at all." And yet again: "To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then there is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one issue which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that act there is no self at all." In answer to a question he was asked at a public meeting, "Is it possible for a man and a woman to live together, to have sex and children, without all the turmoil, bitterness and conflict in such a relationship?" K said, "Can't you fall in love and not have a possessive relationship? I love someone and she loves me and we get married, that is all perfectly straightforward and simple, in that there is no conflict at all. (When we say we get married I might just as well say we decide to live together.) Can't one have that without the other? Without the tail, as it were, necessarily following? Can't two people be in love and both be so intelligent and so sensitive that there is freedom and an absence of a centre that makes conflict? Conflict is not in the feeling of being in love. The feeling of being in love is utterly without conflict. There is no loss of energy in being in love. The loss of energy is in the tail, jealousy, possessiveness, suspicion, doubt, the fear of losing that love, the constant demand for reassurance and security. Surely it must be possible to function in a sexual relationship with someone you love without the nightmare which usually follows. Of course it is." ============================== end================= At 07:54 PM 8/9/1998 -0500, you wrote: >You have wonderfully summarized the natural conditions that exist. > >But many formal schools which are supposed to lead one towards spiritual >develpment traditionally treated sex as a no-no for spiritual unfoldment and >has been the accepted norm for centuries and many in theosophical circles >still believe it so. I have no problem in any one personally believing >anything including tooth fairy. > >In any case, I will still try to post very succinct summary on the issue of >celibacy, when much fuss was made on the question of physical relationship >Krishnamurti had with the wife of his business manager (manager himself was >declared as an initiate of the Great Mysteries during Besant/Leadbeater days >before Krishnamurti disbanded the Order of the Star of the East). The >relationship was of course consensual between two adults. > >mkr >-------------- >At 04:36 PM 8/9/98 -0600, you wrote: >>Doss wrote: >> >>>The traditional view is that celibacy is essential for spiritual progress >>>and enlightenment. There is the contra view of Krishnaji which questions >>>this. I will try to post Krishnaji's view on this which may be very relevant. >> >>I am often confused on why one would choose to incarnate as a "human" and >>then spend all one's time trying to avoid being a "human." Perhaps it is >>because so many humans think being a human is a "bad" thing and have >>assigned so many terrible attributes to what encompasses being a human. >> >>Sex between two consenting adults - sex that is loving, communicative, and >>mutually fulfilling is, in itself, an intercourse with the Divine. It >>helps one "grow," learn to share, learn to be attentive to the needs of >>others. Sex is an excellent instructor. . .why throw out this teacher? >>> clip<<<< From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 00:32:34 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 23:21:56 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: transmuting Message-ID: <35CE8374.6243B52D@usa.net> References: <00e501bdbe98$b443f1a0$e90b9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Govert W. Schüller wrote: > What criteria will be valid to > determine > whether a messenger is genuine or not? I have referred before to > criteria > like vibration, transformational effects and content. It seems to be different for people with different disposition which criteria they consider when looking for "truth". In my case it is an immediate perception of "quality and content of consciousness" that guides me. Two people can say the same words bu they may convey vastly different content, depending of differences in consciousness. I suppose this criterium is related to what Govert calls "vibration". Bjorn From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 00:47:34 1998 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 23:46:54 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <35CE894E.292ED2B9@usa.net> References: <000301bdc2f8$0303caa0$a28bf2c2@bazzer> Bazzer wrote: > > A tree is known by its fruit. Let us examine: > > (a) HPB: "The Secret Doctrine", voluminous other works/articles, > selfless/tireless devotion to Truth/Brotherhood, Their *direct* Agent etc. > etc. etc.. > > (b) CWL: Bishops, robes and candlestick holders; a *religion* (Liberal > Catholic, too boot!); a few fuzzy 'visions' from the astral light and some > pretty pictures of xyz Manu or other. Your "examination" of Leadbeater is hard to take seriously. L's writings may have brought more people to an appreciation of Theosophy than anybody else's. Bjorn From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 08:20:50 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:16:40 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Disrespectful discourse Message-ID: <238f7a5b.35cef2b9@aol.com> In a message dated 8/9/98 11:37:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, RIhle@aol.com writes: << a ready-willingness to degrade another person by means of contumelious flippancy and safe-distance familiarity perhaps indicates that one has not yet really spotted the True Theosophical adventurer either in oneself or the in other person. >> << In other times, perhaps Theosophists honored one another to a greater degree simply because there was more of a mutual understanding about the profoundness of the Mysteries being approached. >> Well, said and very true. Sutratman From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 08:43:21 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:31:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Mercury retrograde and sundry Message-Id: <199808101331.JAA02120@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Hey gang, Eldon's right-- So far I've spent several hundred on assorted car repairs and it still ain't right, and now I've got a lightning struck satellite receiver. Holding my breath for computer hassles at work or home. But that snafu energy doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try to communicate. Although Merc retro makes it harder, it may also be effective in that there's a quality of "going back over" issues. Responding to various posts: Richard, thanks for the insightful words. Sometimes I wonder if it's a regional or national thing, that Southerners and Midwesterners are a lot more committed to conflict avoidance than Northerners or Westerners. And Aussies seem comfortable with what most Americans would consider rudeness. Most of the ugliness on this list has always come from the Western US. Wonder if that's coincidental or if the relative rootlessness out there makes people feel they can just say anything. Be nasty to people around here (small VA town) and you'll be ostracized for the rest of your life. But more profoundly your case makes sense-- there is a direct correlation between the way people believe what they believe and the way they feel authorized to treat unbelievers. Kym, you're a hoot! Glad you appreciate the double entendre. Seriously, my own observation of my celibate years is that celibacy is useful in avoiding entanglements that would take one's energies away from a particular focus. But otherwise it is quite destructive of the ability to connect with people in a loving way, a genuine open-hearted way, and I see this in many cases I've observed. Fear of women is part of it, but the real issue isn't avoidance of sex or women, but LOVE. Deep issues here. He hath spoken. Daniel, I'm going one step down the slippery slope of responding to your misreadings of me AND NO FURTHER. Well, maybe two. You call it a "significant admission" that I call Ooton Liatto and friend "two real adepts." But surely you realize that what I mean by "real adepts" does not include any of the assumptions you seem to bring to it. I just meant real people, who were occultists of some sort and knew HPB. Didn't endorse the paranormal phenomenon as you know. Also, you say I'm skeptical about the possibility of organizations of adepts being connected to HPB. Clearly a misreading; I've gone to great lengths to ferret out just such associations in her life, such as Masonic, Rosicrucian, Sikh, Sufi, etc. connections. I just don't accept that all these diverse separate "brotherhoods" were One Big Brotherhood except in a metahistorical and metaphysical sense. Sure there were some connections. But no Great Big Conspiracy running the world. But hey, let's not talk about this any more. If you want to dissect my Cayce book, more power to you. Statute of limitations is up on my theories about HPB's Masters which were first published in 1990. Frankly, I've lost interest in discussing it. Thanks, Murray, for pointing the discussion back to what I considered the real issue. There are lots of "real adepts" around, genuine holders of lineages of Sufism, Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, etc. Why should we focus on inaccessible hypothetical adepts, if we want to connect to Masters, when there are so many genuine, flesh and blood, authorized exemplars of traditions HPB endorsed as being her sources? I just don't get it, EXCEPT that a real guru might tell us we're wrong whereas the imaginary kind always endorse everything we think and do? And, as a friend with UFOlogy connections said, people are always more impressed by spacemen from another galaxy than by men from Mars. Distance adds enchantment. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 09:47:37 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:37:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: 99.9% don't need adepts? Message-Id: <199808101437.KAA10686@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Jake, I'd like to question the assumptions behind your comment that we have the teachings, therefore don't need adepts, at least 99.9% of people don't. While you and I would have drastically different readings of the term adepts, let's compromise and think of them as "the most highly spiritually evolved humans" leaving aside how we'd recognize that or what it means. Although it may be true that only one tenth of one percent of people "need" to be in a formal guru/chela relationship, I'd say that 100% of humanity needs the visible presence of holiness in such beings in the world. The idea of "teachings" as an elaborate and systematic cosmology and esoteric psychology etc. being what we need from adepts seems to me to be anachronistic. Science can give us those and is in the process of unfolding the mysteries of the universe and the human mind/body. What science cannot give us, and spiritually awakened humans can, is a moral example, a call to our spirits, a beacon shining upon our future possibilities. And while to some extent you can get that from 19th century books, there really needs to be a visible presence of holiness in the world NOW. Don't you agree? Paul From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 10:02:37 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:58:03 +0700 From: "Visanu Sirichote" Subject: Celibacy Message-ID: <001201bdc46f$a7532560$9c2292cb@vs> Doss quoted Krishnamurti: >….Surely it must be possible to function >in a sexual relationship with someone you love without the nightmare which >usually follows" It may not be a nightmare for Krishnamurti but how about Rosalind Rajagopal in her ordeal of terminating the pregnancy, a sequel of believing in the precautions that the erstwhile world teacher assured her he was using. The result of trying to damn any force up is that it goes off into a variety of side-channels which are far removed from normal course. It’s not the policy of the Masters to encourage celibacy as mean to enlightenment, as may be seen in the letters written by one of them to Olcott around 1875. " ...Purity of earthly love purifies and prepares for the realization of the Divine Love. No mortal man's imagination can conceive of its ideals of the divinity otherwise but in the shape the familiar to him. One who prepares for solving the Infinite must solve the finite first." " ....Man's Atma may remain pure and as highly spiritual while it is united with its material body; while should not two souls in two bodies remain as pure and uncontaminated notwithstanding the earthly passing union of the latter two.." However, when man has passed through this experience and has glimpsed of the Divine Love, he will know that sexual love is ever an illusion, for it is the result of an imaginary image, a complete intoxication of the Astral Light and if he wants to realize the truth he can't afford to indulge in this extravagance. With this realization and desire to develop himself for the benefit of humanity, it is necessary for him to preserve and transmute sexual force for higher end. This may be what Jake and Tony try to accomplish. Why not wish them good luck? Best, Visanu From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 10:47:36 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:47:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Creolization Message-Id: <199808101547.LAA20046@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> I'd like to propose a concept from Stephen Prothero's The White Buddhist as a healthy way to consider the changes that have occurred in the Theosophical movement. Healthy because relatively nonjudgmental and fair. Quoting from my forthcoming book: Prothero argues that Buddhism as understood by Olcott was a `creolization' of liberal American Protestantism and traditional Theravada Buddhism. Creole languages combine elements from `host' languages, which dominate the vocabulary, and `substrate' languages, which dominate the grammar and syntax. For example, Haitian patois relies largely on French vocabulary but African structural elements. Similarly, Prothero argues, Olcott's Buddhism used the vocabulary of his Asian host culture but retained the basic assumptions of his native Protestantism. Linguistics theorists note that "individuals seem to be almost as consistent about clinging to inherited grammatical forms as they are comfortable with adopting new vocabularies." Applying this metaphor to Cayce's readings, he can be said to have freely adopted the vocabularies of Theosophy and New Thought while retaining the fundamental logic of American Protestantism. (p.52, Edgar Cayce in Context.) This concept may allow for a less partisan approach to the ways people like Leadbeater, Bailey, and the Ballards "adulterated" Theosophy. Leadbeater and Bailey, for example, came out of the Church of England, with an elaborate ecclesiastical hierarchy and a religious leader who was also the ruler of the nation. So they come along, accept HPB's teachings by and large and claim to be simply developing her themes. But clearly the fundamental logic of the C of E gets applied to all the Theosophical vocabulary, as both CWL and AAB present the Masters as an elaborate hierarchy with titles and positions, which governs the world. So they creolized Theosophy and Anglicanism without consciously setting out to do so. Myrtle and Charles Fillmore studied Theosophy but basically came out of the Christian Science/New Thought milieu. So they creolized those two streams, adapting Theosophical ideas like reincarnation to a New Thought context. One could go on explicating in this vein; Steiner, the Ballards, the Prophets, all combining elements in ways that reflect their personal backgrounds. This will continue forever, as it is the way new religious movements emerge and define themselves. Now Blavatsky fundamentalists might say "That's precisely the problem! All these people took pure Theosophy and mixed it up with extraneous elements, thus adulterating it. Whereas from HPB we get the direct, undiluted, unmixed TRUTH FROM THOSE WHO KNOW." Problem with that is, HPB is obviously one of the biggest and most successful creolizers of all time. She learned a lot about Eastern religions, as is evident in her writings, and acquired a lot of Hindu and Buddhist vocabulary. But as any non-Theosophist familiar with her writings will tell you, the fundamental logic of the Western occult tradition, on which she cut her eyeteeth, underlies all that acquired Eastern vocabulary and is the bedrock of her system of teachings. Russian Rosicrucianism with its "Unknown Superiors" around the globe and special focus on Tibet is a good example of basic Western influences on HPB. The question then facing us becomes not "Is this a pure and unadulterated teaching" but "How successful, how appealing, how useful and elegant is this particular combination of elements?" For me, Cayce is the best of the 20th century heirs of HPB by this criterion, but your mileage may vary. As long as the argument is between advocates of an allegedly pure and unadulterated teaching and those of anm allegedly "downgraded" parody of same, it will just go around in circles. If we admit that *everything* is creolization in the field of religion, everything is mixed up from preexisting elements, then there can be mutually respectful discussion of their relative merits. BTW as a Christian I see Jesus in just this light. Not THE ONE TRUTHGIVER who learned nothing from any human agency, but rather a creolizer of considerable sophistication. Mixing Greek philosophy and Jewish mysticism, he created a potent new combination that reverberated throughout the centuries. But he wasn't "ideologically pure" any more than HPB was, or CWL, or Cayce. Namaste, Paul From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 11:34:16 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:28:44 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: K. Paul Johnson again on the Adept Brotherhood Message-ID: <35CF1FBC.43B@azstarnet.com> References: <199808101331.JAA02120@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Daniel, I'm going one step down the slippery slope of responding > to your misreadings of me AND NO FURTHER. Well, maybe two. You > call it a "significant admission" that I call Ooton Liatto and > friend "two real adepts." But surely you realize that what I mean by "real > adepts" does not include any of the assumptions you seem to bring > to it. I just meant real people, who were occultists of some > sort and knew HPB. Didn't endorse the paranormal phenomenon as > you know. Also, you say I'm skeptical about the possibility of > organizations of adepts being connected to HPB. Clearly a > misreading; I've gone to great lengths to ferret out just such > associations in her life, such as Masonic, Rosicrucian, Sikh, > Sufi, etc. connections. I just don't accept that all these > diverse separate "brotherhoods" were One Big Brotherhood > except in a metahistorical and metaphysical sense. Sure there > were some connections. But no Great Big Conspiracy running the > world. But hey, let's not talk about this any more. If you want > to dissect my Cayce book, more power to you. Statute of > limitations is up on my theories about HPB's Masters which were first > published in 1990. Frankly, I've lost interest in discussing it. Daniel Caldwell replies: Yes, we certainly don't want to go to far down that slippery slope!!! My comments were primarily directed toward Jerry S. and HIS comments on HPB's Masters, etc. Concerning your comments on Ooton Liatto and his adept associate, you wrote: > But surely you realize that what I mean by "real > adepts" does not include any of the assumptions you seem to bring > to it. I just meant real people, who were occultists of some > sort and knew HPB. Paul, I don't exactly know what assumptions you think I bring to this. My point was simply if Jerry (or even you) accept that Olcott meet "real adepts" (however defined!!) and they were "real people, who were occultists of some sort and knew HPB", then might not they be members of some adept association? And maybe Koot Hoomi, Morya and others were also members of that same adept association. In your book, you admit that you could not identify who these adepts really were, i.e, you could not find biographical information to identify Ooton Liatto and the other unnamed adept. Therefore, could you then or even now identify the "Brotherhood" to which they belonged? Probably not. My point is simply maybe Ooton Liatto (Hilarion) and the other unnamed adept associate belonged to the same organization as Koot Hoomi, Morya, etc. And my question to Jerry S was: Is that really so unbelievable or far-fetched? Than (as you know) several years later, Olcott in his private diary notes that Hilarion (Ooton Liatto?) passed through Bombay, India. And in Mahatma Letter No. 8, (3rd edition), Koot Hoomi refers to Hilarion in these words: HPB "lent an ear to ONE OF OURS, who is passing through Bombay from Cyprus, on his way to Tibet. . . ." Caps added. Here Koot Hoomi identifies Hilarion as one of HIS adept associates. Now you will probably put your own definition and spin on this. Fine. My point to Jerry and other interested readers was simply if one accepts Ooton Liatto visiting Olcott and HPB in New York and later visiting them again in Bombay, then possibly this *historically unidentified* person was one of the many Brothers of HPB belonging to the occult brotherhood HPB writes about. Again when you write: >I've gone to great lengths to ferret out just such > associations in her life, such as Masonic, Rosicrucian, Sikh, > Sufi, etc. connections. I just don't accept that all these > diverse separate "brotherhoods" were One Big Brotherhood > except in a metahistorical and metaphysical sense. Sure there > were some connections. But no Great Big Conspiracy running the > world. Well, maybe the "Adept Association" HPB writes about is NOT any of these specific Masonic, Rosicrucian, Sikh, Sufi, etc." brotherhoods. Maybe HPB's "Adept Fraternity" was more international in scope than the ones you list, but not necessarily whatever you mean by the "One Big Brotherhood." Again, I don't exactly know what you mean by the "Great Big Conspiracy running the world." Is this something from Blavatsky's writings or from later Theosophical writings? Again my point in referring to Ootton Liatto and his unnamed associate was simply this: Can Jerry S. (or you or whoever) identify the "Brotherhood" or association to which possibly these two adepts belonged? Probably not. If one can accept the existence of Masonic, Rosicrucian, Sikh, Sufi, etc. "societies" (call them whatever) why is it so hard to conceive that there might not be another association composed of the individuals of many races? **An association such as described by HPB?** Ooton Liatto possibly belonged to that association when he was in New York and still belonged to that association when he was in Bombay talking to Olcott and HPB. And Koot Hoomi wrote that he was "one of theirs" and was on his way to Tibet. Now I realize that you (and possibly Jerry S. as well as others) cannot for whatever reasons accept at face value all the evidence pointing toward the existence of some such Adept association as described by HPB and deduced from the testimonies of those who met HPB's Masters. David Pratt, Nicholas Weeks and I have given our own critiques showing why we think your speculations on this subject fall far short of truly explaining the vast array of testimony to be found concerning HPB's Adept associates and their association/fraternity/brotherhood. I look forward to hearing Jerry S.'s views since I was primarily responding to his comments. No farther down the slippery slope! Daniel From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 13:32:36 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 06:14:10 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-ID: <000401bdc48b$e1fe9ca0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 10th 1998 Dear Doss: Thanks for welcome. Not only did computer crash twice but I was also in hospital briefly for pneumonia. Hope this is the end of troubles ! I think we all ought to thiink as to how Theosophy ought to be defined to ourselves and amongst us -- I mean the fundamentals We will all spend a lot of time on details if we don't have HPB's teachings firmly in mind. I find after a year's work with all who have given such useful contributions in this, our group, that many times we seem to go out on "limbs of thought" and seem to forget for a while that all "limbs" are attached to a "trunk." I would call that "trunk" the record of the Perennial Philosophy -- the "Wisdom-Religion" -- or, Theosophy. I say: We all owe this view, in this era, to HPB, and she, in turn, acted as the recording Agent of the Mahatmas -- who many times gave her their accreditation [ see "Mahatma Letters" ]. They are living men who have perfected all their faculties so that they are in perfect tune with Nature in all its many departments. They therefore are able to provide us with information that is integrative in nature. This, in turn, leads us to independently set our minds to verify their exposition made through HPB. While there can be as many opinons as we please, there has to be some central foundation from which, and to which we all may refer. That provides stability. It also gives us as a group of researchers a basis from which to think and discuss. The method is entirely Scientific, as the accumulation of data has to be related in time and space to some central base. We all make contributions to this and add our experience and thought to the Whole. I also believe that some will object to such a "foundational" concept. They may think that this limits their freedom to think and to inquire. It is not so intended. In SD I 272-3, HPB lays open the basis (quite Scientific) on which the Fundamentals have been verified. She speaks there of the ceaseless work of verification that proceeds and continues. We add to it. Each of us ought to verify those fundamentals and assure ourselves of their reasonableness. 1. The manifested Universe we sense in various ways emanates from the ABSOLUTE indescribable "background" which forms the timeless and dimensionless basis for all our limitations in time and space. The closest idea to this in our manifested condition is SPACE -- which includes all things and also all times. Actually "Time" is a limited manifestation in "DURATION," which is timeless. The word "SPACE" may be employed to give to "SPIRIT" a meaning -- as the best, highest, most inclusive of IDEAS. None of us can divorse themselves from involvment in SPIRIT (or jump out of SPACE). 2. What causes MANIFESTATION ? In terms of logical answers HPB in the S D says: LAW. That is the Eternal and sourceless KARMA of our whole Universe including every smallest manifested unit therein. [ see SD I 14 -18 ] When a new Universe comes into manifestation it does so under KARMA and is the result, or reincarnation, of an earlier Universe. [ We as humans follow the same pattern. We (as immortal Spirit-Souls) reincarnate, using a succession of bodies, the matter aggregated thereto forms, successively, our new personalities. ] 3. EVOLUTION and growth in experience is the third great Idea. Everything becomes more intelligent, more conscious of the Self as time passes and experience flows by. This is not only the great tendency of LIFE but offers as an idea, the potential of learning everything that can be known in our Universe, given the time to seek and learn. And this may take many incarnations. This leads me to the concept that we are all, at core, immortal pupils. And that the Earth and Universe we live in, is a School. Each life is like a day spent at school and when the time comes for the body to die, the experience of our lives is accumulated, and then in due course after a rest (in Devachan) is carried forward (by the immortal We, the real Spirit-Soul) to the next life. To me, from these few ideas all the rest can be related.: sleep, dreams, extra sensory peception, Karma -- good or bad --, etc., etc., Every great sage in the past has left some record that dovetails with the findings and records of their illustrious predecessors. HPB gave us the idea that there is (and has always been) a "college" of the Wise [ see ISIS UNVEILED II pp 98 - 107 ]. Some ask if they can contact the Masters I see from recent postings. Is this not premature ? Is it not like the freshman in college asking if the President of the University will give him time to meet and handle his questions -- before he or she has acquired the wisdom to know what to ask and why that time is to be given to them. Are any of us so important ? We may think we are important, but does that make it necessary for the Masters to arrive at our doorstep ? And if a Master should visit us, have we the knowledge to recognize one ? Is this not one of the reasons why people who are either curious or impatient desire such contact -- and if they should be granted it, would they, like "poor Brown" (in MAHATMA LETTERS) recognize, be frightened, and turn away from the opportunity ? Each one ought to answer themselves on this subject. The answer is yes and no. As we advance in knowledge and usefulness we will find that opportunities arise that give us such contacts. Are we fitted to recognize them? Anyone who has read MAHATMA LETTERS will recollect the several conditions under which such contact may be made. We may also be sure that if our work and progress in active brotherliness continues we will attract the attention of the Wise and we will receive such "help" as we deserve. Such is the great law of assistance to all. But it does not satisfy the merely curious. A few thoughts are these on this wonerful subject, and on Theosophy which is our best tool and assistant as we proceed along the "Path." Best wishes, as always Dallas Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc,net > Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 7:59 AM > From: "M K Ramadoss" > Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? >Dear Dallas: > >Nice to see back. > >Let me add my 0.02. > >To me at least, Theosophy presents a most comprehensive account of man and >the universe, even though at present it may be a working hypothesis. I have >not seen anything else which is better. I am grateful for finding Theosophy. > >mkr > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 17:17:38 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:00:10 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: #353 (spell "celibacy") Message-ID: <000001bdc4aa$3ea188a0$578bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980809163606.0079b7e0@pophost.micron.net> Responding to Kym: Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: "The question is often asked, "Why should celibacy and chastity be a *sine qua non* rule and condition of regular *chelaship*, or the development of psychic and occult powers? The answer is contained in the Commentary. When we learn that the "third eye" was once a physiological organ, and later on, owing to the gradual disappearance of spirituality and increase of materiality (Spiritual nature being extinguished by the physical), it became an atrophied organ, as little understood now by physiologists as the spleen - when we learn this, the connection will become clear. During human life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is useless to give any longer explanation". See also "Occultism vs the Occult Arts". >The advocation of celibacy is also very detrimental for women - first, it >strips them of the closeness they want from the men in their lives, Sentimental twaddle. Women should endeavour to free themselves from their dependencies as much as men. > and >secondly, one way men deal with pledges of celibacy is to eliminate women >from everything altogether. One might equally surmise that one way woman might deal with her own dependency on sexual contact/attention is to deride celibacy. Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer) From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 17:47:37 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:20:33 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #352 - Koot's terminology Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980810162033.0079e100@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808090002.TAA18244@proteus.imagiware.com> Daniel wrote quoting Koot: > >". . . We employ agents---the best available. Of these for the past >thirty years the chief [agent] has been the personality known as H.P.B. >to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and very troublesome, no >doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no likelihood of our >finding a better one for years to come I find the term "some" used by Koot interesting. Who was the "some" he was referring to? If Koot is talking about the Mahatmas as the "some" then this implies there is some doubt among the Mahatmas as to HPB being the 'best choice.' And if this is true, then it further implies a kind of "split" among the Mahatmas - which may go further to suggest that HPB may not have received a full instruction, perhaps just a limited one - maybe she was simply Koot's favorite, and Theosophy is founded upon the views of only one or two Mahatmas - which may explain the rise of other belief systems which claim the mouth of the Mahatmas, for they may simply be the 'chosen ones' of the other Mahatmas (hence, Koot's statement that HPB is the best for "years to come," again, suggesting others could possibly come forth). Kym From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 18:17:43 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:52:21 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: The face of the average human being Message-ID: <35CF79A5.AE71C8B5@usa.net> http://scorpio.idl.com.au/home/spun/webdweller/ From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 18:47:37 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:32:36 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Koot's terminology Message-ID: <35CF8314.7AD1@azstarnet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980810162033.0079e100@pophost.micron.net> Kym, Thanks for your comments. No, the "some" in K.H.'s letter does NOT refer to other Mahatmas. You would need to read the whole letter in context to know who the "some" refers to. The year is 1888 and a number of things are going on both at Adyar, London and Paris. I won't go into the details but your speculation is not warranted by historical records of the time period in question. Again, you write that possibly HPB "was simply Koot's favorite", etc. etc. Please reread the other quote I gave in the same email. Master KH writes: ""This state of hers [HPB's] is intimately connected with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of fruitless search, OUR CHIEFS had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European *body* upon European soil to serve as a connecting link. . . ." Koot Hoomi in an 1881 letter to A.P. Sinnett I add the caps. OUR CHIEFS, i.e., KH's & M's superiors, had been involved in the selection of the HPB body/personality that would be used as "a connecting link". There's more to this story. . . . Daniel Rilke wrote: > > Daniel wrote quoting Koot: > > > > >". . . We employ agents---the best available. Of these for the past > >thirty years the chief [agent] has been the personality known as H.P.B. > >to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and very troublesome, no > >doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no likelihood of our > >finding a better one for years to come > > I find the term "some" used by Koot interesting. Who was the "some" he was > referring to? If Koot is talking about the Mahatmas as the "some" then > this implies there is some doubt among the Mahatmas as to HPB being the > 'best choice.' And if this is true, then it further implies a kind of > "split" among the Mahatmas - which may go further to suggest that HPB may > not have received a full instruction, perhaps just a limited one - maybe > she was simply Koot's favorite, and Theosophy is founded upon the views of > only one or two Mahatmas - which may explain the rise of other belief > systems which claim the mouth of the Mahatmas, for they may simply be the > 'chosen ones' of the other Mahatmas (hence, Koot's statement that HPB is > the best for "years to come," again, suggesting others could possibly come > forth). > > Kym > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 19:17:39 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:11:16 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Question for Govert Message-ID: <35CF8C24.3292@azstarnet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980810162033.0079e100@pophost.micron.net> Govert, In order for me to better understand your point of view on the various messengers of the Masters, can you briefly tell me what Theosophical Teachers you accept? Is it Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Ballard, Prophet? Or some other lineage? I have a list of more than 30 individuals who have claimed in one way or the another to be the sucessor of Madame Blavatsky and to be a new messenger of HPB's Masters. Do you accept all these claims? If not, how do you decide which ones are true, etc? Daniel From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 19:24:57 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:09:11 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: A question for Bjorn Message-ID: <35CF8BA7.3292@azstarnet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980810162033.0079e100@pophost.micron.net> Bjorn, In order for me to better understand your point of view on the various messengers of the Masters, can you briefly tell me what Theosophical Teachers you accept? Is it Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Ballard, Prophet? Or some other lineage? I have a list of more than 30 individuals who have claimed in one way or the another to be the sucessor of Madame Blavatsky and to be a new messenger of HPB's Masters. Do you accept all these claims? If not, how do you decide which ones are true, etc? Daniel From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 19:28:46 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:07:56 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: General Message-Id: <199808110007.UAA31368@wopr.defnet.com> Paul J.: Well, I think if one of Blavatsky's adepts were to make himself public - exhibiting phenomena, giving the philosophy again and its demonstration, and, in short, proving beyond a doubt that he really was a bonafide Adept - he would probably be killed or incapacitated within a short while, and a whole bunch of people would go bonkers in one way or another (remember Sinnett's idea about producing the London paper in India on the same day...) Yes, we do need more inspiration and examples of holiness. Everyone also has an endless source of this within themselves, also, if they can aspire to it in their Higher Self. Yes, their are many "small s" adepts, or masters in their own area of expertise, and good ones too, here and there. CELIBACY: I'm not claiming that Theosophy recommends celibacy - it doesn't except for chelahood. I'm not claiming to be a lifelong-dedicated celibate monk either, and don't want to give that impression. Moderation and control is about the best path for most it seems IMHO. RILKE WRITES: >If Koot is talking about the Mahatmas as the "some" then >this implies there is some doubt among the Mahatmas as >to HPB being the >'best choice.' And if this is true, then it further implies a >kind of "split" among the Mahatmas ----------------------------------------------- Just because "some" thought Blavatsky was troublesome doesn't mean they didn't think she was still the best choice....... It Might mean that they personally couldn't stand to work with Anyone that was available. Of course there are "splits" and different methods, although one has to believe that those in Blavatsky's Lodge worked in concert. There are "White" and "Black" adepts also - and I guess that is about as big a split in the big picture as you can get. - Jake J. From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 21:02:37 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:00:05 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Karma - a current view Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980810210005.007a4490@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980809160808.007a2850@mail.iprolink.co.nz> I think your description of Karma is right on target. In India there is a famous proverb - he who can predict the future accurately, is god himself. What this implies is the complexity of causes which lead to a particular result. mkr At 04:08 PM 8/9/1998 +1200, you wrote: >Hi everybody > >This is a reply to John Vorstermans of the New Zealand theos-nz discussion >list but I thought it might be worth posting here too. > >--------------------------------------- > >The phrase "cause and effect" has become a little like a tight garment that >a child has outgrown. ><>>>>>>clip<<<<<<<<<<<<< From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 22:02:39 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:44:39 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: Disrespectful discourse Message-ID: <35CFB017.506989F@usa.net> References: <19980807160455.221.qmail@hotmail.com> David Green wrote: > > But I'll be damned, I can't understand > how informed & rational persons could > accept Masters of "The Mahatma > Letters" & also believe in ECP's > Masters. I'm sure Govert is sincere > in his belief. No doubt. No doubt. > I'm just saying I find such belief > irrational. I, too, find the traditional Theosophical teachings and those of ECP to be of similar vibration and pointing in the same direction. I believe ECP's masters and Blavatsky's adepts in some cases are the same individuals and when not, at least belonging to the same spiritual "family". I am known among my friends, associates, etc to be a fairly balanced and rational person. > ECP's Masters are all goody-good & > sugary sweet. You say this due to ignorance. Let me prove it to you: > Why do you think, O sons of God upon earth, that you sense the tiredness and the fatigue in your own bodies when you ought to be young, youthful, and virile? Why, this generation is experiencing the very stealing of the light, as though robbers would break in and leave no trace of their coming or of their going. > These fallen angels, by deliberate design, have lusted after your light! They have come for you! They pipe their tunes and you dance. > Shame on you! > Light-bearers from the sun, I call you home! I rebuke you, I warn you, and I say: Leave them! Leave them all! For you have no part with them. And if you tarry, you enter unmistakably the death coil. > Death is an addiction on earth in all of its forms! It becomes the binding habit of nicotine or alcohol or self-abuse or rock or drugs. Every addiction has its withdrawal syndrome, its crisis. You must be willing to withstand the inconvenience and the discomfort. Maha Chohan 82 > I regard Mrs Blavatsky's writings > & Mahatma Letters as reliable but not as > sacred. I would dare to guess that the reasons you do so are very similar to my reasons for also regarding ECP's writings as reliable (read her book on Kabhala!) From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 22:32:35 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:20:32 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #356 - Lucky people Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980810212032.007a27f0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808102317.SAA00551@proteus.imagiware.com> Bazzer wrote: >One might equally surmise that one way woman might deal with her own >dependency on sexual contact/attention is to deride celibacy. So, I take it, Bazzar, from your post that you neither have sex nor a girlfriend. Visanu suggested we wish folks like you "good luck." Well, alrighty then - GOOD LUCK, BAZZER. Kym From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 22:37:47 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:12:10 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #356 (What does Theosophy deal with) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980810211210.0079dc30@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808102317.SAA00551@proteus.imagiware.com> Dallas wrote: >I would call that "trunk" the record of the Perennial Philosophy -- the >"Wisdom-Religion" -- or, Theosophy. I say: We all owe this view, in this >era, to HPB, and she, in turn, acted as the recording Agent of the >Mahatmas -- who many times gave her their accreditation [ see "Mahatma >Letters" ]. How can anyone say that we "all owe this view" or Perennial Philosophy to HPB? There were many before her who espoused these same views - she cites those individuals over and over again in her writings. And, if we look at how many people have gotten the message of the Perennial Philosophy of HPB's over other such philosophers and "messengers" - HPB has reached very, very few. She can hardly be given the huge amount of credit so many on this list insist on giving her when the whole picture in taken into context. Personally, I adore the bold, brazen, brilliant woman HPB was - but over-glorifying her borders on insult and fanaticism. It also does her a great disservice, for those who are "worshipped" are compartmentalized, fought over, dissected, ridiculed, misunderstood, and sometimes, consequently, left only a shell - and always eventually shown to be simply HUMAN. "Believers" often accuse the "non-believers" of destroying what is supposedly 'holy' - yet, on close inspection, it is the interpretation of the "believers" that introduce the writings and teachings of the "Messenger" and if the "believer" adds horror to the teachings, the "Messenger" is the one who takes the brunt of the backlash. Those who "believe" are far more responsible for the fate of any "Prophet" or "Messenger" than any "non-believer" could ever be. . .those of you who pride yourselves on being selected to spread HPB's message must watch your interpretations very carefully. People of today are turned off by those who worship graven images. And give due credit to others who have helped and continue to help the world - it didn't begin or end with HPB. >Are any of us so important ? Dallas, have some faith in the creations of God. Quit insisting that we all recognize how puny and ignorant we all are - can you not focus instead on the courage, faith, good works, desire to learn, desire to love, desire to help others, that are fundamental to humans? Maybe, Dallas, just maybe SOME people WOULD recognize and know a "Mahatma" if they saw one - and there are some people on this planet who do wonderful things everyday and I've not heard them report a visit from a "Mahatma". . .. Just because one doesn't get a visit from a "Mahatma" doesn't mean they are not worthy to receive one. Again, give people credit for their good works and do not imply that "non-visits" mean some kind of personal shortcoming. What the hell kind of message is that to send out to the people??? Kym From ???@??? Mon Aug 10 23:32:36 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:24:18 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-ID: In a message dated 8/10/98 2:37:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: << Not only did computer crash twice but I was also in hospital briefly for pneumonia. Hope this is the end of troubles ! >> Nice to see you back, Dallas. I appreciate your insights. Namaste Sutratman From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 01:02:41 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:17:01 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: Disrespectful discourse Message-ID: <35CFB7AD.B25C561D@usa.net> References: <19980807160455.221.qmail@hotmail.com> I sent the reply to David before it was complete. Here are some more examples (The second one is quite long, but it directly addresses favorite subjects on this list, such as mediumship, messengership, lineage of messengers, etc): David Green wrote: > ECP's Masters are all goody-good & > sugary sweet. You say this due to ignorance. More examples: > I rebuke you for your failure to internalize more of the Word! For I know the potential, and potential never was enough! For all they who have fallen have had grand potential and grandiose ideas, but they have not delivered the blessed babe of the eternal Christ Mass. Jophiel 85 > You cannot bypass the divine office of your Holy Christ Self; for in so doing, you will miss the mark and miss the mantle. You cannot wear the mantle of Christ if you do not perform the work of that Christ. The mantle must fit and you must fit it. And the shoes and the staff must also be fitted to you, as you are fitted to these. > Understand, therefore, that many withdraw and shrink from the necessary rebuke, both to the unrighteous and the righteous. Therefore, I am compelled by the Almighty to rebuke each and every one of you. For no matter what the persecution, no matter what the condemnation of the world–speak truth and let truth be your defense! For otherwise you will have no other defender and no defense in the day of judgment. Cyclopea 82 > > Vol. 18 No. 16 - El Morya - April 20, 1975 > > The Chela and the Path > Letter XVI > Down through the centuries we have appointed our Messengers prophets of the law, Teachers of the way of the Christ consciousness and of the Buddhic light. Others whom we would call unappointed or self-appointed messengers have come forth to blatantly usurp their ministry and their office in hierarchy. And so there is abroad in the land an enticing spirit, beguiling as the serpent, that is not the true spirit of prophecy. Nor is it come as the gift of the Holy Spirit;EN2 it is the voice of rebellion and of witchcraft, of vain talkers and deceivers.EN3 These are the crystal-ball gazers, the psychic readers and self-proclaimed messiahs–bewitched and bewitching, coming in the name of the Church yet denying the true Church, coming in the name of the Logos yet their lives a betrayal of true reason and the law. > They are the archdeceivers of mankind. They would take over the person and the personality of the Ascended Masters and the real Gurus. Setting themselves up as gurus, they sit in the lotus posture smoking the peace pipe with the false hierarchy, dispensing drugs along with demons, and even training their disciples in the manipulation of sexual energies for heightened sensual gratification. In their all-consuming lust for power, they teach the way to God through sexual perversion, abuses of the body, and the desecration of the Mother. And the light they steal from those they ensnare is used to satisfy their mad cravings and to control vast segments of the population through witchcraft, variance, and mortal cursings. > Others are in the business of training “channels” and psychic healers. They know not the difference between spiritual and psychic energies–the pure and the impure stream. Thus the gullible they make channels for the energies of the pit, for the diabolical murmurings of familiar spirits and of “wizards that peep and that mutter.”EN4 The false hierarchies and the fallen ones come in many guises, seeking to impress an infant humanity with their sleight of hand, trance and telepathy, their flying saucers and other trappings. > I say woe to those who are adept in the mental manipulations of Matter and astral energies yet have not the Christ–the snake charmers and charlatans who display a phenomenal control of bodily functions yet have not one iota of soul mastery! As if they had a thing to offer mankind which mankind cannot get directly from their own Christ Self, their own I AM Presence, and the living flame which God has anchored within the heart! > Some of these, deceived and deceiving others, go so far as to say that everyone should be a psychic channel, everyone should develop his psychic powers. Like the magicians in Pharaoh's court,EN5 they hold up to our Messengers their psychic phenomena and they say, “See, we do the same thing!” Not so! Like the fallen ones who, in their attempt to level hierarchy, would make themselves equal with the sons and daughters of God, these psychic channels would cause our Messengers and their work with the living Word to become muddied by the flood of psychic material being released by the false hierarchy. > Let it be so! They have free will. As the grass of the field, they have their day; for the wind passeth over them and they are gone, to be remembered no more.EN6 But the day of the true Messengers of hierarchy shall be as the giant redwood marking the cycles of the spiritual-material evolution of the race and as the snow-covered Himalayas outlining the pinnacles of soul attainment. Thus the prophets have come in every age, and their day is the day of the salvation (self-elevation) of the race of mankind. And the coming of the Messenger is always the preparing of the way for the coming of a new level of the Christ consciousness. “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”EN7 > In every century the Messengers have proclaimed the living truth that should free mankind from age-worn doctrine and dogma. In this age they have come to prepare the world to receive their own Christ-identity and the I AM Presence “coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”EN8 Their coming marks the hour when all who have realized the oneness of the I AM Presence through the ritual of the ascension should appear to mankind through the exalted vision of the Christ consciousness. Not only Jesus, but Mary, Saint Germain, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, and all who have attained oneness with the eternal flame of Life through the ritual of the ascension–these shall appear to mankind in the Second Coming once mankind themselves have accepted the law of the I AM Presence and their own identity as Christed ones. > The true Messengers of God receive only the word of the Great White Brotherhood and of the Ascended Masters. Their communion is not with the dead, nor do they practice necromancy or spiritism or hypnotism or the mesmerism of the mass consciousness. They are forbidden by cosmic law to allow their chakras to be instruments for the fallen ones, to channel the energies of disembodied souls abiding in the astral realm, or to be the mouthpiece of discarnates or any of the rebellious spirits which comprise the false hierarchy. > This is the age of the testing of the spirits. Therefore, as John said, “Try the spirits whether they are of God.”EN9 How does one try the spirits? Blessed ones, you challenge every voice within or without which comes to you in the name of the Lord: > In the name of the living God, my own I AM Presence, and by the flame of Jesus the Christ, I challenge every voice that speaks from within or from without. And I say, I demand that you show forth your light! I call forth the flame of the Holy Spirit to consume in you all that is less than God's perfection. I call forth the Elohim and the all-seeing eye of God to expose the truth, to expose the lie, and to strip all mortal consciousness of its mortality. Let it be replaced here and now with the immortal flame of God-reality. > In the name of the Christ, I call to the Elohim Astrea to encircle the cause and core of every spirit of deception, self-deceived and deceiving. I call to Archangel Michael to cut me free by the action of the sword of blue lightning from every entity inhabiting the astral plane, from all denizens of the deep. > And I call to Mother Mary and her virgin consciousness to intercede for me in the name of Jesus the Christ, that my soul and my four lower bodies might be preserved as a chalice of purity to receive only the word of Almighty God and his true emissaries. So let it be done in the name of the I AM THAT I AM! And let the hosts of the Lord come forth to defend the Word incarnate in the souls of all mankind. > Precious ones moving toward the center of the I AM THAT I AM, the Ascended Masters and representatives of the Great White Brotherhood, whether on this or any system of worlds, will never be offended by this invocation. Those who are offended, both giving and taking offense, are not of the Christ. Every emissary of the light is required by law to show forth the credentials of his light to all who demand those credentials. > Therefore, speak with the voice of one who has the authority of the Christ and the commandment of God; and accept the covenant of Jesus given unto his disciples “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” EN10 > It is lawful to question the purveyors of the false teachings and those whose lives do not bear the fruits of living truth. As it is written, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”EN11 And so without hesitation Jesus cursed the barren fig tree, saying, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever”;EN12 for the elemental spirit thereof had failed to provide fruit for the souls of mankind. Thus is the judgment of the Four and Twenty Elders pronounced upon those false hierarchs of the age even as Jesus spoke unto those who proclaimed themselves authorities of the law: “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”EN13 > Let it be known, then, that sweet water and bitter do not come forth from the same fount. EN14 Likewise, those who have failed to surrender the lesser self unto God, those who have failed to make this sacrifice, are not counted among our emissaries. They come teaching in their own name instead of in the name of the Ascended Masters. Instead of giving God the glory, they pursue the vainglory of name and fame for their teaching or their system or their methodology. > These are they who come preaching the kingdom, saying, “Lo here!” or “Lo there!” who fail to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is within you.EN15 They make themselves gods before men. Being themselves idolaters of the lesser self, they receive the idolatry of the lesser selves of their followers while failing to exalt the Higher Self. > And so as the messenger of Jesus instructed John the Revelator who fell down to worship him, “See thou do it not...worship God,”EN16 and as the commandment was given, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,”EN17 so we say, worship God as the I AM THAT I AM. With all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, worship him.EN18 > For the act of worship is an action of flow. It is a flow of energy from your soul that makes an arc with the object of your worship. It is the energy of devotion. And therefore if the object of your devotion be any aspect of the lesser self, God's energy in you flows to that self, forming the arc of idolatry. And one day the idol will come crashing down, broken before your feet; and it will be the arc of your own energy that destroys both the idol and the idolater. > The testing of the Messengers is the testing of the decibels and of the cycling of the energies of infinity through form and consciousness. Where there is light uncontaminated by the darkness of ego and ego manipulation, where there is a dazzling sun of glory and real contact with hierarchy through the power of the spoken Word, where there is the conveyance of the Christ mind, there stands the Messenger of the Great White Brotherhood. > And so the messenger of the covenant shall suddenly come to his temple.EN19 His temple is the heart of man. He is the Christed one standing at the altar of the sacred fire to read the proclamation of deliverance–the deliverance of the soul into the arms of Almighty God. And so the Christed one releases the statement of the law even as that statement has been sent forth by the Messengers whom we have chosen and ordained. > In 1876, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was ordered by the Master Kuthumi and me, then known as the Masters K.H. and M., to write Isis Unveiled. Later she was given the responsibility of imparting The Secret Doctrine to the world. Commissioned by Jesus the Christ, the Ascended Master Hilarion, and Mother Mary, Mary Baker Eddy was given certain revelations which she set forth in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Though at times beset with their own preconceptions and the burden of the mass consciousness, these witnesses codified the truth and the law of East and West as the culmination of thousands of years of their souls' distillations of the Spirit. > Such Messengers are not trained in a day or a year or a lifetime. Embodiment after embodiment, they sit at the feet of the Masters and receive the emanations of their mantle in the power of their word and example. A number of others who were selected to perform a similar service for hierarchy failed in their initiations through the pride of the intellect and their unwillingness to submit identity totally unto the flame. They have become thereby totally self-deluded and they continue to draw innocent souls into the chaos of their delusion. > In the 1930s came the twin flames Guy W. Ballard and Edna Ballard imparting the sacred mystery of the law of the I AM, further knowledge of hierarchy, the invocation of the sacred fire, and the path of the ascension. Representatives tried and true of Saint Germain, they were commissioned to remain the only Messengers of the hierarchy of the Aquarian age until mankind should redeem a certain portion of their karma. > When that cycle was fulfilled, Saint Germain, together with the Darjeeling Council, sponsored Mark and Elizabeth Prophet to carry on the work not only of the Ballards and the I AM movement, but also of Nicholas and Helena Roerich. The Roerichs set forth the word of Morya destined to reach both the Russian and the American people with the energy and the enlightenment that should deter the red dragonEN20 of World Communism. And so the Mother flame of Russia and the Mother flame of America converge in spirals of freedom and victory for the sons and daughters of God in both nations and in every nation upon earth. > Hierarchy is no respecter of persons, of politics, or of polemics. Hierarchy's call knows no barrier. It cannot be stayed by the iron curtain or by the iron wall that a mechanistic civilization has erected around the children of God. The beam of our eye is a laser beam; it is the action of the ruby ray. It goes straight to the heart of the devotee; and no hand and no force and no ideology can stay the will of the Master who sends forth that ray to call the souls of God home. > Let those who reckon otherwise beware. For I have spoken; and the Lord has said, “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”EN21 > I conclude my letters to chelas on the path with the exhortation of the apostle of the early Church whose office is now filled by the Mother of the Flame: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”EN22 > When Peter was confronted with the ultimate test of sacrifice, he attempted to remove himself from the fiery core of the Christ, from the center of the flame and of the Mother. Fleeing Rome to escape martyrdom, he met the Lord Christ along the Appian Way and asked his Master, “Quo vadis?–Where are you going, Lord?” Jesus answered, “I go to Rome to be crucified again.” And so Peter accepted his destiny, turned in the way, went back to Rome, and was crucified for his Lord. > To all who are confronted with the temptation to withdraw from the Christ, from the Mother, or from the path of initiation, I say, go back! Go to Rome–there to be crucified for your Lord, there to lay down the lesser self, that the Christ may appear not only in you, but in the hearts of all mankind. > And the promise of the Second Coming is fulfilled each time you lay down the life of the lesser self that the Christ might take it again and go forth to work his works through you as apostles of the Church Universal and Triumphant, as disciples of Christ, as ministers and teachers, healers and counselors, as servants, scientists, artists, and artisans of Spirit and Matter. > Go forth in the name of God and in the name of Jesus the Christ. Swiftly, fearlessly, run to greet your divine destiny there at the nexus of the fiery cross where God and man meet in a conflagration of the Holy Spirit that is the essence of living love. > I AM Morya waiting for the knock of the chela at the door of the Darjeeling retreat. > > M From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 02:47:35 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:37:15 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Mercury retrograde and sundry Message-ID: <000001bdc4fa$dc770e60$2d8bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199808101331.JAA02120@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Paul J wrote: > There are lots of "real adepts" > around, genuine holders of lineages of Sufism, Vedanta, Tibetan > Buddhism, etc. Why should we focus on inaccessible hypothetical > adepts, if we want to connect to Masters, when there are so many > genuine, flesh and blood, authorized exemplars of traditions HPB > endorsed as being her sources? Not being aware of these "real adepts" maybe you could: (a) enlighten as to who they are; (b) by whom are the exemplars "authorized", and, (c) what "sources" do you refer to as being endorsed by HPB? Kindest regards, Paul (Bazzer). From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 03:18:47 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:07:45 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #357 Olcott's letter Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980811020745.0079ad70@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808110602.BAA01915@proteus.imagiware.com> Daniel wrote: >No, the "some" in K.H.'s letter does >NOT refer to other Mahatmas. You would >need to read the whole letter in context >to know who the "some" refers to. Where can I find this entire letter to Olcott? I can't find it in any of my books - or else I'm overlooking it. Thanks, Kym From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 07:17:37 1998 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:40:49 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: re:Done that Message-ID: <35CFA0FE.6C28@dlc.fi> References: <199808100103.UAA04421@proteus.imagiware.com> Nicholas Weeks wrote: > > At this point I am willing to point out to those new to HPB or Theosophy, > that I think PJ is wrong headed on these topics and suggest people study > HPB and her Gurus writings first -- and if they wish to save time and > confusion, ignore PJ's writings. For me, reading P. Johnson`s book helped me to get rid of lot of confusion created by H.P.B. and her 'guru´s' writings. I would have saved much time if I had read it first. Same goes for Tillett`s book vs. Leadbeaters tales. mika From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 08:47:44 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:42:30 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Olcott's letter from KH Message-ID: <35D04A28.A6F@azstarnet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980811020745.0079ad70@pophost.micron.net> Kym, I'm rushing off to work but the letter is to be found in *Letters from the Masters of Wisdom* Series I or Volume I, edited by C. Jinarajadasa. Daniel Rilke wrote: > > Daniel wrote: > > >No, the "some" in K.H.'s letter does > >NOT refer to other Mahatmas. You would > >need to read the whole letter in context > >to know who the "some" refers to. > > Where can I find this entire letter to Olcott? I can't find it in any of > my books - or else I'm overlooking it. > > Thanks, > > Kym > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 11:29:16 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:21:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Who, What, How? Message-Id: <199808111621.MAA07784@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808111400.JAA24549@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 11, 98 09:00:10 am In response to Paul Bazzer's questions it is easier to take them in the opposite order. 1. What schools of teachings are sources endorsed by HPB as genuine? In various places and to various degrees, Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Kabala, Rosicrucianism, Sikhism, Hermeticism, Zoroastrianism, Sufism. 2. By whom are contemporary exponents in these schools of teaching authorized? Varies according to the source, but usually by initiatory pedigree, that is the person or institution under which they studied. 3. Who are they, individually? Here you've got me since I'm not a seeker of Masters myself, but I can refer you to an excellent resource: Andrew Rawlinson's Book of Enlightened Masters, which just treats of Western initiates into Eastern traditions. It's a 650 page compendium most of which is a series of capsule sketches of such figures by category: Theravada, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, Sufism, Hinduism, Independent. For teaching adepts in Western traditions, there's not one single source like that but searching the Net under the individual tradition that interests you would suffice. Happy hunting. PJ From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 13:09:16 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:01:56 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Bjorn on Leadbeater and other issues Message-ID: <35D08714.FD17EBC@usa.net> References: <19980805152358.12891.qmail@hotmail.com> <35CB2CDF.984A9696@usa.net> <35CCAF38.3304@azstarnet.com> Caldwell/Graye wrote: > > Bjorn, > > Let me jump into the middle of this discussion, since you have raised > some good issues. > > I will ask you some questions in order to try to understand where you > are coming from. Govert and others can also chime in! Sorry to be so late answering you. (Available time is limited with job, seven children and other spiritual commitments.) > I ASSUME that you believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P. > Blavatsky? Some of these claims are: > > That she was the messenger of a certain Association of Adepts and that > she was sent into the outer world to give out the ancient teachings of > Theosophia. Yes, I do. > That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, Koot > Hoomi and several other initiates. Yes. > That she was a tulku and the Mahatmas used her as an instrucment for > various purposes. Tulku of what? > That Morya and Koot Hoomi and several other adepts either dictated or > wrote through her various portions of her writings especially Isis > Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. Yes. > That these adepts were flesh and blood human beings and from time to > time visited Blavatsky, Henry Olcott and others either in the flesh or > in their Mayavi Rupas. I believe some of them still used physical bodies, but that some had transcended that level entirely. > H P Blavatsky wrote more than 10,000 pages on Theosophy, etc. Yes, she wrote a lot. > >From this multitude of sources, a serious inquirer/student should be > able to construct a pretty clear picture of what Blavatsky and her > Teachers taught, the nature of the relationship between Blavatsky and > her Teachers, what kind of Adept Association sponsored her work and what > it means to be an Initiate of this Association. Do you agree with any > of this? In theory, yes, but as others here have pointed out, there seems to be considerable room for differences of interpretation. > A SIDE NOTE: Unfortunately, IMO, far too many students haven't taken > the time and effort to read and study all this material. What a pity! Studying B or any other esoteric/spiritual writings is not an end in itself. I certainly agree it can be immensly beneficial, but to make the reading of all B's 10,000 pages mandatory just doesn't make any sense to me. > If you believe what the Masters say in their letters, then HPB was a > very unique individual. She certainly was. But she was not the only unique individual in human history. Please do not misunderstand me. I think HPB did an enormous and ground breaking job for her masters. > Do you accept what the Master KH says about HPB? What I don't accept is the idea of finality or infallability. I believe in the foundational teachings brought forth through HPB, however. > Now let us briefly consider HPB's infallibility. > She never claimed to be infallible. Nor did her Teachers. But there is > a huge difference/gap between being infallible on the one hand and being > UNRELIABLE. I get the impression that you think I am somehow "against" HPB. I never was. But there is always issues of mistaken perception, wishful thinking, and, personal perspective and conditioning. Nobody can totally break free from these while yet embodied. > From her early > writings to her later ones, one can find definite *recurring* themes, > ideas, concepts, teachings (call them whatever). And if you read the > letters of the Masters, especially THE MAHATMA LETTERS, you can identify > the same RECURRING teachings. Do you agree with this?] Yes, and I find the same recurring themes in the writings of Leadbeater, Besant, Yogananda and many others. Our difference may be that I don't see B as the one who is above all the rest, while you may do so. > So as David Green comments, we are not concerned with the infallibility > of HPB's writings and teachings, but with how reliable they are. No, > HPB has no monopoly on the truth, but that doesn't mean that her > writings are unreliable nor does that necessarily mean that her books > are full of major errors of theosophical doctrine. There are certainly errors, but more importantly, she had a mindset and her work was colored by it (like everybody else's). > Bjorn, I would appreciate your views on any of the above. Do you > accept Blavatsky's major claims? If you have reservations, can you > briefly describe them. I hope I have answered, albeit somewhat briefly. Bjorn From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 13:24:23 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:15:35 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: A question for Bjorn Message-ID: <35D08A47.CA7CEC19@usa.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19980810162033.0079e100@pophost.micron.net> <35CF8BA7.3292@azstarnet.com> Caldwell/Graye wrote: > > Bjorn, > > In order for me to better understand your point of view on the various > messengers of the Masters, can you briefly tell me what Theosophical > Teachers you accept? > > Is it Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Ballard, Prophet? Yes, the above, and more: Buddha, Jesus, Padma Sambhava, Milarepa, Babaji, Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Ramalinga Swamigal (little known but important), Cyril Scott, Sri Aurobindo (his little book on "The Mother" is an unsurpassed revelation to this day, please read it everybody), the Roerichs, Krishnamurti (before the the pathless speech), Geoffrey Hodson, Innocente. > I have a list of more than 30 individuals who have claimed in one way or > the another to be the sucessor of Madame Blavatsky and to be a new > messenger of HPB's Masters. Do you accept all these claims? No. >If not, how do you decide which ones are true, etc? To me it is a matter of comparing the quality and content of consciousness with what I experience within as the highest truth I am able to contact. Bjorn From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 13:39:10 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:43:04 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: Question for Govert Message-ID: <003201bdc54f$8141bfe0$890a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> > From: "Daniel H Caldwell" >Govert, > >In order for me to better understand your point of view on the various >messengers of the Masters, can you briefly tell me what Theosophical >Teachers you accept? Let me first refer you to my "The Masters and their Emissaries: >From HPB to Guru Ma" at http://pages.prodigy.net/schuller/story.htm . Here you'll find a skeletal, chronological outline of those emissaries of the Masters which I accept as such. Later I'll try to formulate some criteria which went into this story. Govert From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 13:54:09 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:07:59 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: theos-talk@theosophy.com Message-ID: <35D07A6F.DF26AA7C@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980809145300.007a7cc0@mail.iprolink.co.nz> Murray Stentiford wrote: > The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached > today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. today. I thought the Adepts made it clear that they do not wish to be approached, and had no intention of making public personal contact with anybody else. Of course, they also said that they were not the only group of Adepts... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 13:55:39 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:42:33 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: Bjorn on Leadbeater and other issues Message-ID: <002d01bdc54f$6e199320$890a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> > From: "Daniel H Caldwell" >I ASSUME that you believe/accept the basic, major claims of Madame H.P. >Blavatsky Probably with some reservations here and there, I do accept these claims. A more important question to me is: In what way can HPB's and the Master's writings inspire me to become a better human being? Will their concept of time make me more patient with life and its complexities, but not with those who do not agree with me? Will their concept of karma make me more understanding of my brothers and myself and so be more able to forgive, except those who do not agree with me? Will their polemical style inspire me to get understanding and refute errors, or give me a license to 'diss' those who do not agree with me? Will HPB's claim to be in contact with higher evolved beings be taken as an indication that more like her might be around and worthy of looking for, or will she be idolized as a once-in-a-manvantara messenger? etc. In defense of Ballard&co. Govert From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 14:04:46 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:13:45 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: How do you spell "celibacy?" Message-ID: <35D06DB9.45E4BE93@sprynet.com> References: <199808081837.NAA30361@proteus.imagiware.com> <3.0.3.32.19980808200813.01349ea0@mail.eden.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > The traditional view is that celibacy is essential for spiritual progress > and enlightenment. There is the contra view of Krishnaji which questions > this. I will try to post Krishnaji's view on this which may be very relevant. Of course, frequently one is given a set of choices, none of them good, and therefore one must choose the least harmful. That was the essential point Leadbeater was trying to make when he taught his students masturbation: it is better to relieve the sexual tension than it is to live with it. George Orwell, in 1984, pointed out that chastity (a better, more general term) is a useful political control device. At least according to Freudian psychology (I am not sure what the current point of view is, and would appreciate correction if I am wrong), when the body is deprived of sexual release, the energies can be channeled somewhere else. The political (either secular or religious) body that demands chastity can redirect the energies to the service of the political body. It's a great way to manufacture fanatics. Now, in magical practice, there is a theory that psychic energies and sexual energies use the same physical and etheric channels, and that chastity increases the effectiveness of these channels. This would also fit in with Leadbeater's observations (theosophy be the theoretical side of occultism). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 14:09:21 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:42:01 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: Paul, Govert, etc. Message-ID: <002801bdc54f$597a08a0$890a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> > From: "Jake Jaqua" > Govert: I think probably the majority of people on this list >could write something more "esoteric" or deep than what is in the >Prophet book. Eventhough nobody made a conscious effort, I have not read anything yet on this list that would indicate that you might be right. > About "dissing" people. Well, It is better to avoid personal >attacks if possible and I try to avoid it more than I used to. Appreciated. But my >personal irritation steps in often because I believe people are >purposively B.S.ing others, or their ego is so large that they are >actually serving their ego with a "catchy" idea rather that disciplining >themselves to seek truth. Would that not be an indication of the lack of patience and skill in dealing with people who you think are involved in possibly ruinous false teachings? What is your priority here? Being able to vent your irritation or helping a 'lost' soul? Are personal sentimentalities more >important than truth, even if some temporary pain is involved? Maybe >sometimes yes and sometimes no. Diplomacy and truthfulness can go together, but easily part ways. >Not to criticize is to die. I'd amend that statement to: Not to dialogue is to die--whether you criticize or not. In defense of Ballard&co. Govert From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 14:10:49 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:35:21 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Who, What, How? Message-ID: <000001bdc556$cbda90c0$318bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199808111621.MAA07784@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Responding to PJ's reply: Dallas's posting of August 10th ("What does theosophy deal") hits the nail on the head. It is all too easy for us to end up spending vast amounts of time/energy on peripherals (e.g. religions, Who's Who in the guru stakes, the various high-ways and bye-ways of personal preference/interpretation etc.) and little or no time/energy on fundamentals (e.g. Be-ness, Abstract Space/Abstract Motion, Brotherhood etc.). Kindest regards, Paul (Bazzer) > 1. What schools of teachings are sources endorsed by HPB as genuine? In > various places and to various degrees, Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Kabala, > Rosicrucianism, Sikhism, Hermeticism, Zoroastrianism, Sufism. > 2. By whom are contemporary exponents in these schools of > teaching authorized? Varies according to the source, but usually > by initiatory pedigree, that is the person or institution under > which they studied. > 3. Who are they, individually? Here you've got me since I'm not > a seeker of Masters myself, but I can refer you to an excellent > resource: Andrew Rawlinson's Book of Enlightened Masters, which > just treats of Western initiates into Eastern traditions. It's a > 650 page compendium most of which is a series of capsule sketches > of such figures by category: Theravada, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, > Zen, Sufism, Hinduism, Independent. For teaching adepts in > Western traditions, there's not one single source like that but > searching the Net under the individual tradition that interests > you would suffice. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 14:14:11 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:37:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Time and Confusion Message-Id: <199808111837.OAA26527@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Mika's reply to Nicholas set me off on a tangent. How important it is to "save time and confusion"? First reaction: gee, if only I'd stuck with Cayce and ARE back in 1978 when I started reading theosophical books in their library, and never gotten involved with Theosophy, wouldn't that have saved me an awful lot of time and confusion? (Not a new thought for me by any means but reinspired by Mika.) But then, had I not opened that window, would I appreciate Cayce the way I do now? Would I perceive him in a way that would be fresh and interesting enough to inspire a book anyone would read? And surely, had I never had an adolescent phase as a Baha'i, five more years of time and confusion would have been saved. But wasn't a lot gained in those years that has stood me in good stead? At another level, if I'd been celibate for life, had no romantic entanglements, wouldn't *that* have saved a huge amount of time and confusion? How about having no siblings, half-siblings, or step-siblings (I'm one of 9 in all)-- now that *really* would have saved a lot of time and confusion. Jobs and houses and friends have all involved t&c too-- away with them! In short, everything worthwhile in life seems to involve plenty of t&c, so advising people to "save" them doesn't strike me as wise. Moreover, the thought that my books might cause confusion in readers is actually encouraging. (Although the amount of time some people have devoted to attacking them seems bizarre.) Times of greatest confusion are often times of major breakthroughs. Most people make up their minds about a subject and then manage to avoid encountering anything that would shake up their settled opinions. As true of Theosophists who believe HPB never lied as of skeptics who think she never told the truth. To have shaken up the certainties of people at both ends of the spectrum at once is hardly something to be ashamed of. As Francis Bacon wrote: "If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts; but if he will be Content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." Not there yet but maybe in a few lifetimes, Paul PS-- Mika, thanks, glad to see you back. I find it amusing that the same people who regard Greg T. as a hero for "debunking" CWL often hate my books, yet Greg was one of my biggest supporters from way back. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 14:24:10 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:16:29 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-ID: <000101bdc55c$8b3c7460$318bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000401bdc48b$e1fe9ca0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Dallas wrote: > 1. The manifested Universe we sense in various ways emanates from the > ABSOLUTE indescribable "background" which forms the timeless and > dimensionless basis for all our limitations in time and space. "Background" is an interesting term. On the first (un-numbered) page of PROEM ("The Secret Doctrine", 1888) we find: "On the first page is an immaculate white disk within a dull black ground." Further down it states: "Only the face of the Disk being white and the ground all around black, shows clearly that its plane is the only knowledge, dim and hazy though it still is, that is attainable by man." What is "immaculate white disk"? Space? It (only) *represents* "Kosmos in Eternity". It is "within" a "dull black ground". Why dull? It seems a curious term. Is dull black ground symbol of Be-ness? What of "disk" and "Disk" (spot the difference)? It is not circle or sphere or ring, for example. What of the "face" of the "Disk"? Is it literally: "being", "white" (as distinct from Be-ness, black)? Before PROEM (un-numbered page) is a 'blank' page. No words/text are on it; no-thing. But what's "within"? Comments/clarifications most welcome. Kindest regards, Paul (Bazzer) From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 17:12:19 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:10:28 EDT From: "Brant Jackson" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- bad idea Message-ID: <8a3f7ccb.35d0c155@aol.com> Chuck said the the ancient mystery schools were nothing but an excuse to get drunk, etc. Given the much good that has been said of them by many people of unquestioned character and intellect, what, pray tell, do you have any authority for your dismissing comments other than your own personal opinion? Brant Jackson From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 17:27:20 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:23:59 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #356 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980812012359.007a5330@mail.iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808102317.SAA00551@proteus.imagiware.com> Hi Dallas In response to your: >Some ask if they can contact the Masters I see from recent postings. Is >this not premature ? Is it not like the freshman in college asking if the >President of the University will give him time to meet and handle his >questions -- before he or she has acquired the wisdom to know what to ask >and why that time is to be given to them. The literature documents the pathologies well enough, but I think that anybody with the problems you refer to would hardly be moving towards them in any sense that matters, let alone arriving. My own original question was simply about *approaching* the Adepts - on closing the gap. The distance between us and them, between "your world and ours" - "quite a different world" - as one of them wrote, is far less physical than inner. Call it a psychological distance perhaps, or one of quality and scope of intent. It is a distance which is closed in the measure that our view widens beyond small concerns, our compassion kindles and our thought deepens - above all, perhaps, to the degree that we find the desire to be of value and service to other beings, rising within our being and unfolding into action. This is the real journey towards them, and to arrive must be to see with their vastness of vision, respond with their immensity of heart, and wield the "thunderbolt" of their thought .... and the fact that we can begin to conceive of them at all is perhaps the surest sign that we have what it takes to get there. Something to set our compasses by. Murray For those who want to know, the first quote (re world) is in letter 2 in the two main accessible editions of The Mahatma Letters. I couldn't find the thunderbolt one tonight but maybe somebody would like to tell us where it is. >Some ask if they can contact the Masters I see from recent postings. Is >this not premature ? Is it not like the freshman in college asking if the >President of the University will give him time to meet and handle his >questions -- before he or she has acquired the wisdom to know what to ask >and why that time is to be given to them. Are any of us so important ? We >may think we are important, but does that make it necessary for the Masters >to arrive at our doorstep ? And if a Master should visit us, have we the >knowledge to recognize one ? Is this not one of the reasons why people who >are either curious or impatient desire such contact -- and if they should be >granted it, would they, like "poor Brown" (in MAHATMA LETTERS) recognize, be >frightened, and turn away from the opportunity ? Each one ought to answer >themselves on this subject. > >The answer is yes and no. As we advance in knowledge and usefulness we will >find that opportunities arise that give us such contacts. Are we fitted to >recognize them? Anyone who has read MAHATMA LETTERS will recollect the >several conditions under which such contact may be made. We may also be >sure that if our work and progress in active brotherliness continues we will >attract the attention of the Wise and we will receive such "help" as we >deserve. Such is the great law of assistance to all. But it does not >satisfy the merely curious. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 17:59:10 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:34:55 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: theos-talk@theosophy.com Message-ID: <007d01bdc579$1b7355a0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached >today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. today. > They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather than try to find any external Teacher. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 18:14:36 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:27:36 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: #353 (spell "celibacy") Message-ID: <008001bdc579$1f0e7dc0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> > Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 7:02 PM > From: "Kym Smith" > Subject: #353 (spell "celibacy") >Doss wrote: > >>The traditional view is that celibacy is essential for spiritual progress >>and enlightenment. There is the contra view of Krishnaji which questions >>this. I will try to post Krishnaji's view on this which may be very relevant. > >I am often confused on why one would choose to incarnate as a "human" and >then spend all one's time trying to avoid being a "human." >Bottom line: Don't die sexually frustrated. > >She has spoken. > > >Kym > Amen. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 18:16:32 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:44:55 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Done that Message-ID: <007e01bdc579$1c351f00$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> >For myself I have written a review of one of PJ's books and spent enough >of my few little grey cells in writing about his concepts. My view is >that Paul Johnson does not (perhaps cannot) understand Theosophy or HPB. >There are many, many people who, like Paul, do not accept HPB on her own >terms -- probably the majority of those who have pondered on her and her >Theosophy. > This reply is terribly elitist (I know HPB but you don't!!) and says more about the author than about Theosophy. HPB never required anyone to accept her "on her own terms" (whatever that means). >At this point I am willing to point out to those new to HPB or Theosophy, >that I think PJ is wrong headed on these topics and suggest people study >HPB and her Gurus writings first -- and if they wish to save time and >confusion, ignore PJ's writings. > This is your own opinion and subjective conclusion based on your current worldview. You are perfectly entitled to it. I, on the other hand, feel quite differently. I have deep respect for HPB and her works and somehow still was able to enjoy and appreciate Johnson's book, which made her and her Adepts out ot be very human. >At some time in one's life you have to ponder on values to choose, then >choose, then act on those values chosen. > I would like to think that we all do this. >I still occasionally will debate, but I try to focus on questions and >puzzlements from new students and not spend much time on beating dead >squirrels. > Debate is OK, as long as it doesn't get too personal. There is no more wrong with your hating Paul's books than there is with me liking them. HPB, like all of us human beings, is multi-faceted and can be viewed from many angles. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 18:21:46 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:47:44 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-Id: <199808112247.XAA19555@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Paul wrote: >Dallas wrote: > >> 1. The manifested Universe we sense in various ways emanates from the >> ABSOLUTE indescribable "background" which forms the timeless and >> dimensionless basis for all our limitations in time and space. > >"Background" is an interesting term. > >On the first (un-numbered) page of PROEM ("The Secret Doctrine", 1888) we >find: > >"On the first page is an immaculate white disk within a dull black ground." THEN: "On the following page, the same disk, but with a central point." Is the following page "on" the same leaf, hence literally the same disk, within the leaf (the dull black ground)? But with a central point. The text commences, "AN Archaic Manuscript - a collection of palm leaves. . . ." Here it seems as if only one palm leaf is referred to - what about the other leaves. Do they relate to other Kosmos? Or to other Manvantaras/Pralayas....? like leaves on a "tree?" > >Further down it states: > >"Only the face of the Disk being white and the ground all around black, >shows clearly that its plane is the only knowledge, dim and hazy though it >still is, that is attainable by man." This seems to be a long way from "an immaculate white disk,"and man can only reach the FACE of the Disk, and yet it is still the same disk. an immaculate white disk within a central point, is this only on the face of the disk, does it spring out of the disk? Does it relate to the dull black ground? Tony > >What is "immaculate white disk"? Space? It (only) *represents* "Kosmos in >Eternity". It is "within" a "dull black ground". Why dull? It seems a >curious term. Is dull black ground symbol of Be-ness? > >What of "disk" and "Disk" (spot the difference)? It is not circle or sphere >or ring, for example. What of the "face" of the "Disk"? Is it literally: >"being", "white" (as distinct from Be-ness, black)? > >Before PROEM (un-numbered page) is a 'blank' page. No words/text are on it; >no-thing. But what's "within"? > >Comments/clarifications most welcome. > >Kindest regards, >Paul (Bazzer) > From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 18:22:30 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:24:24 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Jerry Schueler on the Mahatmas Message-ID: <007f01bdc579$1d062aa0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Jerry Schueler commented: > >> This can be taken two ways: an exoteric "association" of physical >> Adepts and an esoteric one such as the Brotherhood of Compassion >> as described by G de Purucker. I am quite convinced that she was >> of the latter. Whether of the former (a physical group of living Adept= s) or >> not I am sceptical and don't much care one way or another. > >Daniel Caldwell replies: > >It is not clear to me what would be the real difference between an >"exoteric" association and an "esoteric" one in this context. > The difference lies in what is usually called initiation. With exoteric organizations, initiations are outward symbolic rituals. With esoteric organizations, they are inward deep and profound experiences accompanied by meaning and insight. The idea that HPB was physically initiated in Tibet by Adepts mean little to me, for example. But her works indicate to me that she underwent inner esoteric intiations, and I find this to be much more meaningful. >You seem skeptical of "a physical GROUP of living adepts." Paul Johnson >and others also seem skeptical of an association of physical adepts. I >really don't see what is so unbelievable in such a view. It would be >understandable coming from a non-Theosophist or a person with >anti-theosophical views, but to theosophists who accept many >"unorthodox" things, it is hard to see what is so difficult about >believing in an organized association of adepts. > I have a lot of experience with organizations. I have an MSA, for one thing and have been in many of them both large and small. I know how they work. I am very sceptical of a physical organization lasting for thousands of years with inner secrets being passed on, etc, etc. Living human beings don't work that way. I have made extensive investigations and researches into both Hindu and Buddhist organizations and have never found anything even close to what HPB describes except maybe with Rampa, whom I discount as non-authentic (even David-Neel was unable to substantiate any such occult organization in Tibet, except in the fragmented sense of an occassional guru and his/her students). I am not saying that HPB lied, or embellished the truth. I simply will remain sceptical of her secret organization of Adepts until I find some kind of confirmation. >Here are a several historical items regarding the adept association: > >Henry Olcott testifies: > >"I have seen several Mahatmas---maybe six of them---both in their >physical forms and in their astral bodies. . . . " > But he does not tell us that they were all in the same "school" or "group" or "organization." The idea of six Mahatmas in India is not altogether too far fetched, but the notion that they are all organized together somehow is. >Elsewhere he writes: > >"I know the Brothers to be living men and not spirits; and they have >TOLD me that there are schools, under appointed adepts, where their >Occult science is regularly taught." CAPS added. > I have no problem with this statement, because I feel sure that these "schools" each contain one Adept with a bunch of students and I don't believe for a second that they communicate much between themselves. >Daniel Caldwell wrote: > >> >That she was in direct communication with these adepts, i.e. Morya, K= oot >> >Hoomi and several other initiates. > > >Jerry Schueler commented: > >> I think that we all must agree to this. The real question is whether >> these two individuals were actually members of a group of Adepts >> (they do not come off as traditional gurus, thats for sure). > >Daniel Caldwell replies: > >Again, why are you so skeptical that these two individuals were >"actually members of a group of Adepts"? I really don't understand on >what such skepticism is based. **If you can accept the reality of >several Mahatmas known by Madame Blavatsky, then why is it such a leap >of faith to be open to the possibility that these Adepts worked >together, etc. and were members of an association?** > My scepticism is based on my own perceptions of human beings, my knowledge of organizations (please look at the TS, for example), and my extensive reading and study of occult organizations over many years. Such "schools" were very small. KH may have led one, and M may have led another and these two somehow got together. Anything beyond that is too much for me to believe. If you go back to the ancient mystery schools, there was usually only one or two real Teachers at any time. >Again consulting the historical records, we find that Damodar Mavalankar >gives testimony to the existence of the Adept association: > >". . . . the next morning [Dec. 1883] . . . I had the good fortune of >being sent for, and permitted to visit a Sacred *Ashram* where I >remained for a few days in the blessed company of several of the much >doubted MAHATMAS of Himavat and Their disciples. There I met not only >my beloved Gurudeva [KH] and Col. Olcott's Master [M], but several >others of the Fraternity, including One of the Highest. I regret the >extremely personal nature of my visit to those thrice blessed regions, >prevents my saying more of it. Suffice it that the place I was >permitted to visit is in the HIMALAYAS, not in any fanciful Summer Land >and that I saw Him in my own sthula sarira (physical body) and found my >Master identical with the form I had seen in the earlier days of my >Chelaship. Thus, I saw my beloved Guru [KH] not only as a *living* man, >but actually as a young one in comparison with some other Sadhus of the >blessed company, only far kinder, and not above a merry remark and >conversation at times. Thus on the second day of my arrival, after the >meal hour I was permitted to hold an intercourse for over an hour with >my Master. . . . " > >Here we see Damodar speaking of a number of Adepts in one Ashram: the >other Sadhus of the blessed company. . . .after the meal hour [maybe the >adepts and some of their chelas were actually eating together!!], etc. >etc. > His story reveals three Adepts: KH, M, and their boss. It is highly doubt= ful that they all resided in the Ashram, but more likely were visitors themselves. KH and M often got together because they shared the same goals. I am sceptical that there were any other Adepts. >In private letters to William Judge, Damodar writes much about the >"society" of the Mahatmas. He attended one of the Council sessions at >which many Adepts were present. > This is highly interpretive stuff. "Society" can be two people. Crowley, for example, boasted of his own magical organization making it seem huge when in fact there were only a couple of members. >In a subsequent letter, Damodar writes to Judge that he was taken to the >house of one of the Adepts in Sri Lanka. In my historical research I >have even discovered the location of this incident. > >Damodar writes: > >"There in a little garden in front we found one of the Brothers sitting, >I had seen him before in the Council Room [where a number of Adepts were >gathered!!!] and it is to him that this place belongs. . . ." > >In another letter Damodar tells of his out of the body experience to the >"Chief Central Place" of the Adept Fraternity. My research indicates >that this place is located in the region just east-northeast of Ladakh >in Western Tibet. Other theosophists in HPB's lifetime report having >gone to this place. I realize that Paul Johnson considers Damodar's >OOBE as a mere hallucination but having had veridical OOBEs myself, I >can readily accept Damodar's account at face value. > I would question Damaodar's definition of Adept here. There are many grades of Adepthood. The "Chief Central Place" is within us, not outside. I too have had OOBEs and I believe them to confirm the independence of the soul or spirit, but the experiences that we have while out of body are highly subjective in nature and I believe that most "places" visited are on the inner planes rather than physical (for which physical eyes are needed to see). >And RELEVANT to the above subject is what I wrote in my critique of Paul >Johnson's thesis on M and KH: > >Johnson devotes a chapter of his work The Masters Revealed (pp. 59-62) >to Olcott's encounter with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept. >Johnson identifies Ooton Liatto with the Theosophical adept Hilarion >Smerdis. He writes: > >". . . in May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion >=91passed thro[ough] New York & Boston, thence thro[ough] California and >Japan back.=92. . .A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides >intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in >HPB's diary [scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...describes >meeting an adept....at 433 West 34th Street." (pp. 59-60) > >Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter (dated late 1875 or >early 1876): > >"...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at >the door---I said =91come in=92 and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther= ] >with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and >chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started >in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly >smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the >younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't >worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam >B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her permission >they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams >parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her >and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my >door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had >disappeared---I . . . looked out the window---and saw them turning the >corner...." (Olcott=92s account is given in full in Theosophical History= , >Jan., 1994.) > >Commenting on Olcott=92s story, Johnson makes the following highly >significant admission: > >"The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally >impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While >both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts >visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62) > >The point I want to make on what I said in my critique is that here we >find Paul Johnson admitting the existence of two real adepts. Here are >TWO adepts *associating* with each other, keeping each other's company. >****If this is admitted, then why is it so far-fetched to believe that >they might have had other Adept associates???**** > Yes, Paul agrees that there are real living Adepts. So do I. But why must they all be in leauge with each other? HPB traveled the world, and met with many Adepts all over the place--which is one reason I like Paul's books. She put together everything that she learned, accepting some and rejecting others to come up with her Theosophy. >Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is probably Master Hilarion. Well, >Hilarion (according to Olcott's diary) visited both HPB and him in Feb. >1881 in Bombay. He reportedly was on his way to Tibetan regions. Even >KH mentions him in a Mahatma Letter. Again why is it so difficult to >believe that Hilarion, his unnamed associate in New York, Koot Hoomi and >OTHER adepts were part of an organized group of Initiates. > For one thing, most true initiates don't travel around the world. They find an Ashram or holy place of some kind and stay there. Few, if any, are organized in the way HPB would have us believe. >And if we believe BOTH of Olcott's accounts on Hilarion then he was one >to travel the world: New York. . . . India, Tibet. I would suggest >that maybe Hilarion was going to the "Central Central Place" in >Northwestern Tibet. > I would just love to know why. Why? Why must an Adept travel to a Central Place or anywhere else? They know very well that space and time are illusion, and that there is no real need to go anywhere. Truth is everywhere. Why travel? Today we see HH the Dali Lama traveling, but he has a well stated purpose (to get his homeland back). And so far even he doesn't seem to match up to the wild characteristics given HPB's Masters. Once a person gets mixed up in organization, they cannot give the required time to meditation and other spiritual endeavors and must loose, in some degree, their Adepthood. >I really don't understand a person's MINDSET that will accept individaul >Theosophical adepts but won't accept the possibility that these adepts >belong to a organized group. > Well, I for one, can't understand how you can possibly allow holy and spiritual Adepts to run willy nilly over the world workng on organization= al matters and somehow still have time to be Adepts. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 18:27:18 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:13:26 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Apporaching Adepts Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980811181326.0099aeb0@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approaching Adepts We have seen some traffic on the question of how to approach Adepts with a view that they may consider one for a chelaship which may ultimately lead Adeptship and beyond. Consider the case of Olcott. Before he came into touch with HPB, while a man of very high integrity and talents, he was a man of bars, nightclubs and women. He was a smoker and meat eater.=20 In the traditional model of a candidate for attention of an Adept, he will be the most unfit person. On the other hand, the Brothers who launched TS found him to be their best choice.=20 In one of the letters to APS, one of the Brothers clearly stated that while Olcott was far from perfect he was the best man available for the job. BTW, in one of the letters to APS one of the Brothers did mention that if there were 10s of thousands of people leading a very pure life but they did not chose them due to their wrong beliefs which are more difficult to deal with rather than some of the purely physical habits like smoking and meat eating etc. =20 During his life time, Olcott was blessed with personally meeting several Brothers. It should also be noted that when he and HPB lived in Adyar he ate meat and also enjoyed smoking his cigar.=20 In a similar manner, HPB also was a meat eater and smoker. Nor did she fit into the "cultured" model of the day. She swore and used language not fit for "cultured" society. I do not think that she sought and found the Brothers. One of the Brothers always kept a watchful eye on her from the day she was born. So when we talk of looking for Adepts by leading a model life =96 non smoking, non-meat eating, celibacy, non use of fur etc. while all of that may be good for health of the physical body, I am wondering if lot more is needed in one's quest for looking for an Adept. Like Willie Nelson's song = =96 "Looking for love in all the wrong places", may be it is time to re-examine the whole question and ask ourselves if we are Looking for the Adept in all the wrong places... Perhaps when a Brother knows that we can get a job done in the interests of Humanity, there may no need to look for a Brother. Brothers will come knocking. mkr.../\... From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 18:39:30 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:41:58 EDT From: "Brant Jackson" Subject: Re: Teachings of HPB replace the Masters Message-ID: Jake wrote: "We have the teachings of HPB, so the need to contact the an adept of Blavatsky's lodge is no longer necessary to get teachings. 99.99% + of people don't need to mee one except for selfish or pruient (sic) [purient?] reasons." Jake, I think that you, and perhaps many others, have missed the whole point of Theosophy. I suspect that many people believe that Theosophy is merely a body of knowledge, to be studied, memorized and debated. If that is so, then adepts are unnecessary. The knowledge becomes an end in itself, an object of worship even. One should ask, why was the knowledge given? What is the true pupose of that part of the "ageless wisdom" that HPB gave us? Knowledge, even that contained in Theosophical books, if read for the sake of knowledge alone, is a sterile illusion, a dead end. It serves no purpose except for the miserly self-gratification of the knower. It is mental masturbation. Knowledge is a tool, and is therefore useful only when it is being used for some purpose. Knowledge serves to educate, which is very useful, but again, for what purpose? Formerly esoteric knowledge, I suggest, exists to evoke a response in one who seeks something that cannot be found elsewhere. It feeds a hunger, it is a clue that is missing in the riddle of life. Knowledge is the vital catalyst to the process of constant self- transformation and rebirth for any thinking and acting person. Knowlege can also be an illusion, a trap. If knowledge is seen as an end rather than a process, it stifles action. Knowledge thus becomes the enemy of Truth. Assurance of already having the answer always prevents further seeking for the answer, and prevents the asking of new questions. Dogma kills the quest. Consider the relationship between book knowledge and a live teacher in such a field as medicine, lets say brain surgery. Becoming a brain surgeon is a process in which book knowledge plays a role, but hands on training by one who has held a pulsing brain in his hands is vital. Would you say that because we have books on brain surgery that the practical residency training under senior surgeons should be abolished? It is a funny thing about esoteric knowledge. In the Mahatma Letters, we are assured that knowledge is a multi-level thing, and that true esoteric knowledge is both meaningless and so much madness to most people until one has first purified and developed himself or herself so as to develop the spiritual discernment to intuit the real truths behind the words. I suspect that HPB's teachings are useful as a guide book, as a tool to those on the Path seeking something, but they are meaningul only to those who have long since left the literal meaning of the words behind. Their second purpose is as a trap to the unwary who would study the words, and miss their point, which is the process of growth. Why are the Master's necessary? Have you ever tried to open your chakras by using a mail order monograph? That which is called Theosophy is, always has been, and ever will be a process of self-transformation, for which experienced guidance is necessary. It is no different for a doctor learning brain surgery. Books are useful, but you need an experienced guide beside you when attempt to make use of pratical use of this occult knowledge I suggest that is why contact with an adept [defined as one who is adept at, or has mastered, certain skills] will always be necessary. Of course, if one believes that Theosophical knowledge has no truly useful purpose outside of academic circles and debating societies, then every person's opinion is just as good as anothers. Brant Jackson From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 19:27:18 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:58:08 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <008f01bdc587$67626380$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 11th 1998 Dallas writes: Dear Bjorn: Without HPB's writings (accredited several times by the Masters) we would have no Theosophy. Most of us do not know it thoroughly. Why do we not debate the statements and teachings that she offers in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY ? What did Leadbeater publish while HPB was alive ? what was his status ? What did he write afterwards ? What claims did he make ? Was it "in line" spiritually with what HPB's philosophy opened out to us, or was it focusing on personal matters that involved individuals personally ? Was THEOSOPHY expanded or diminished ? Anyone who compares the two -- as did Margaret Thomas in THEOSOPHY OR NEO-THEOSOPHY, can draw their own conclusions as to value. But in my esteem Leadbeater sounded the knell of the Theosophical Society; and as long as Annie Besant was under his influence the results are what we now see them to be And I mean that most of us seem to be deviting our time to wrangling over trifles and organization instead of the study of philosophy and a search for the applications of brotherhood. Now I am sure to be taken to task for this characterization, but anyone who studies the DOCUMENTARY History of the Theosophical Movement for the past 125 years will come to such conclusions as they desire for themselves. But is that fact or fiction. THEOSOPHY OR NEO THEOSOPHY is available from Mark Jaqua. Best wishes as always, Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:05 PM > From: "Bjorn Roxendal" > Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book >Bazzer wrote: >> >> A tree is known by its fruit. Let us examine: >> >> (a) HPB: "The Secret Doctrine", voluminous other works/articles, >> selfless/tireless devotion to Truth/Brotherhood, Their *direct* Agent etc. >> etc. etc.. >> >> (b) CWL: Bishops, robes and candlestick holders; a *religion* (Liberal >> Catholic, too boot!); a few fuzzy 'visions' from the astral light and some >> pretty pictures of xyz Manu or other. > >Your "examination" of Leadbeater is hard to take seriously. L's writings may >have brought more people to an appreciation of Theosophy than anybody else's. > >Bjorn > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 19:39:07 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:21:00 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: #356 (What does Theosophy deal with) Message-ID: <009001bdc587$68a8ed40$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 11th 1998 Dear Kym: If and when you start to read some of HPB's writings, etc. we will have a chance to discuss maters. We will then have a common focus. So long as you seem to refuse to do this there will be too much time wasted, as I see from what Caldwell writes, what you post, and what I have said in the past, which you do not seem to grasp (unless I am much mistaken). You may qualify my attitude as fanatical, dogmatic, etc... but if you are generous you will ask for my reasons and not voice your opinions to what I have to say, until such time as you have evoked from me that which I mean. There is no question that vocabularies may have to be adjusted. But this can be done without invective on either side.. If you are argumentative then there will be no end to recriminations. Your problem seems to revolve around the use of words and also concerns itself with items that you doubt because you have not studied them or their background in history. If you desire to learn of these, references can be given to you, as several of us have done. Can you succinctly say what it is you want to learn ? If we are not referring to the same material, endless arguments arise; and, quite frankly, I have very little time to engage in argument, but a lot of time to engage in the search for such philosophical truths as we may both be interested in. I am of the opinion that some moderation in language is more indicative of sagacity than the use of expletives, barnyard terms, etc, which only denote to me a lack of that kind of understanding that leads to true discussion. I hope you will excuse my bluntness. I do not claim to be accurate in all things, but to be constructively critical. There is much that I do not understand. there is much that I have still to learn, and I am humble enough to say so. Theosophy as a study for over 55 years has helped me. I hope it might be of assistance to you also. But my age is no criterion as facts and truth is what anyone seems for in sincerity and honesty. On those matters we can have exchanges. If you are not of the opinion that at the core of each of us is a spiritual being, then there is very little that remains to be considered. If on the other hand you assume there is a Spiritual Being inside each of us, our present meetings can be turned into a benefit for both, but not solely on either your or my terms. With best wishes to you, Dallas > Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 8:50 PM > From: "Kym Smith" > Subject: Re: #356 (What does Theosophy deal with) >Dallas wrote: > >>I would call that "trunk" the record of the Perennial Philosophy -- the >>"Wisdom-Religion" -- or, Theosophy. I say: We all owe this view, in this >>era, to HPB, and she, in turn, acted as the recording Agent of the >>Mahatmas -- who many times gave her their accreditation [ see "Mahatma >>Letters" ]. > >How can anyone say that we "all owe this view" or Perennial Philosophy to HPB? > >There were many before her who espoused these same views - she cites those >individuals over and over again in her writings. > >And, if we look at how many people have gotten the message of the Perennial >Philosophy of HPB's over other such philosophers and "messengers" - HPB has >reached very, very few. She can hardly be given the huge amount of credit >so many on this list insist on giving her when the whole picture in taken >into context. > >Personally, I adore the bold, brazen, brilliant woman HPB was - but >over-glorifying her borders on insult and fanaticism. It also does her a >great disservice, for those who are "worshipped" are compartmentalized, >fought over, dissected, ridiculed, misunderstood, and sometimes, >consequently, left only a shell - and always eventually shown to be simply >HUMAN. > >"Believers" often accuse the "non-believers" of destroying what is >supposedly 'holy' - yet, on close inspection, it is the interpretation of >the "believers" that introduce the writings and teachings of the >"Messenger" and if the "believer" adds horror to the teachings, the >"Messenger" is the one who takes the brunt of the backlash. > >Those who "believe" are far more responsible for the fate of any "Prophet" >or "Messenger" than any "non-believer" could ever be. . .those of you who >pride yourselves on being selected to spread HPB's message must watch your >interpretations very carefully. People of today are turned off by those >who worship graven images. > >And give due credit to others who have helped and continue to help the >world - it didn't begin or end with HPB. > >>Are any of us so important ? > >Dallas, have some faith in the creations of God. Quit insisting that we >all recognize how puny and ignorant we all are - can you not focus instead >on the courage, faith, good works, desire to learn, desire to love, desire >to help others, that are fundamental to humans? Maybe, Dallas, just maybe >SOME people WOULD recognize and know a "Mahatma" if they saw one - and >there are some people on this planet who do wonderful things everyday and >I've not heard them report a visit from a "Mahatma". . .. > >Just because one doesn't get a visit from a "Mahatma" doesn't mean they are >not worthy to receive one. > >Again, give people credit for their good works and do not imply that >"non-visits" mean some kind of personal shortcoming. What the hell kind of >message is that to send out to the people??? > > >Kym > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 20:12:18 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:47:26 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Adepts are Maya Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980812104726.0075659c@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <007d01bdc579$1b7355a0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> In my own experience I have never encountered another being on any plane other than the physical one we inhabit now. Master D At 05:34 PM 8/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >> >>The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached >>today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. >today. >> > > >They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not >physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the >current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to >approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather >than try to find any external Teacher. > >Jerry S. > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 20:27:18 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:58:51 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: What was in Morya's pipe? Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980812105851.006a2914@ozemail.com.au> El Barto wrote: >Note that the even the Adepts are not Adepts 24 hours a day (I forget >where it says this in the Mahatma Letters, and am too lazy to look it up >right now). It is also at least implied in the Mahatma Letters that in >order to remain in physical human form, they must generate a certain >amount of personal karma (probably why Moria had a pipe, for example). Bart Lidofsky .... asks - What was in his pipe? From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 20:34:40 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:53:51 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Let the true initiates speak Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980812105351.007510ec@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <007f01bdc579$1d062aa0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> >>Daniel Caldwell replies to Jerry S (einfield?): >> >>It is not clear to me what would be the real difference between an >>"exoteric" association and an "esoteric" one in this context. >> > >The difference lies in what is usually called initiation. With exoteric >organizations, initiations are outward symbolic rituals. With esoteric >organizations, they are inward deep and profound experiences >accompanied by meaning and insight. The idea that HPB was >physically initiated in Tibet by Adepts mean little to me, for >example. But her works indicate to me that she underwent inner >esoteric intiations, and I find this to be much more meaningful. Regardless of what the many opinions on this list may be - there still is only ONE form of TRUE initiation - Death and Re-birth. There are seven insights or epiphanies that many who undergo them think are initiations. But they are still conceptual and thus inherently Mayavic. For those looking for a true mystery school - give up and go live with an Indian Shaman. Disclaimer: Nothing is Real - least of all this. D. Graeme Porter (this is cool right? not to use your first name) From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 20:57:19 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:30:47 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Teachers Message-ID: Brandt: Well, you are surmising an awful lot about about my perspective on things from just seeing a few letters. Do YOU really think you're of the level for direct Theosophical Adept supervision and training??? There are people around with more experience than yourself, and of course they are helpful in being able to point out things that you can't see. Its a heirarchy of teachers, with the Adepts at the top, teaching the top students. Are you ready for a Graduate School Teacher already? Maybe you are even interested in a non-theosophical teacher. One can learn a lot from a good one - Chan, or Zen or a Buddhist Lama. Also - if you are trying to "Open Chakras" then you are not following the Blavatsky method. Her Method dealt with nothing but the head chakra, (see BCW XII) all the lower one's are dangerous, especially below the heart - thats the CWL way. - Jake J. From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 21:12:18 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:07:20 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-ID: <002f01bdc596$06fdbb20$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 11th 1998 Dear Paul (Bazzen) In regards to the symbology that HPB uses in the S D, on which you comment, deduce and inquire, may I suggest the following -- which is only my own deductions thereon, and may be quite incorrect. All symbols are in themselves limited. They are perhaps designed to offer inquiring minds a doorway to metaphysical ideas which are primary to philosophical thought, independent intuition and considerations, and to actual historical facts and events in the timeless past of our Universe and those that preceded it. A circle limits as well as makes SPACE unlimited. But, SPACE emanates (as a limitation) from "somewhere" or "somewhen." It is this indefinable that HPB seems to call the ABSOLUTE. The dimensions of the circle are indefinite even in our world as they are based on the ineffable Pi. Perhaps the dull gray background HPB describes as surrounding the first white Circle is indicative of the undefinable Be-ness or, the ABSOLUTENESS. She says in the SD that "finite" (embodied minds) cannot comprehend this, but they can apprehend the necessity in Logic for its "being" -- a "logical necessity." You may be quite right, and I think you are in assuming that the "blank page" is an undefined "source." Perhaps you could take it as the "Causeless Cause." In any case Manifestation or Manvantara is the reincarnation of all the beings that were active in an earlier Manifestation. It is the "child" of its "mother" predecessor. Later on in the first 200 pages or so of the SD Vol. I, HPB deals with the Earth as the child of the Moon, said to be the physical remnant of the 7-fold Earth in an earlier incarnation. Perhaps KARMA or the Great and undefinable LAW is that which ever propels beings into living, and intelligence into CONSCIOUSNESS. The mind beings -- mankind (and this includes all levels from the infant to the Mahatma and the Buddhas) -- appear to be the required links between SPIRIT and MATTER -- as the ever present polar opposites of all manifestations. Thus the MONADIC TRIAD (ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS) is the first complete geometrical figure after the circle. This is used to symbolize the Eternal Man resident in the physical and personal Self. This triad can also be perhaps represented as the Circle with the Dot. Symbols have to be looked at closely. We have 1. Dull background. (undefined) 2. Circumference of Circle. 3. Surface of Circle. ( White ). 4. Dot in Center of circle. That gives us 4 things defined out of the undefined. There may be more. As Karma and LIFE ENERGY (Universal Jiva) have to be present as well, and Wisdom is a prerequisite for the designing and understanding of such symbols. Most of the first 300 pages of the SD are produced to describe and give structure to the history of development on a Kosmic scale that is our heritage. You will undoubtedly find more. All that is metaphysics, and, as Krishna says in one place in the Gita to Arjuna, thou has been shown many details, but one thing is primary, and that is that the SUPREME SPIRIT dwells in all manifested beings. How are we going to make practical application of all this information, unless it serves to assure us of Universal Brotherhood. Best wishes, Dallas ================================ From ???@??? Tue Aug 11 21:55:42 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:38:11 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980811213811.01740870@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980812104726.0075659c@ozemail.com.au> References: <007d01bdc579$1b7355a0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> Most will agree with you. mkr At 10:47 AM 8/12/1998 +0900, you wrote: >In my own experience I have never encountered another being on any plane >other than the physical one we inhabit now. > > >Master D > >At 05:34 PM 8/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >>> >>>The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached >>>today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. >>today. >>> >> >> >>They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not >>physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the >>current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to >>approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather >>than try to find any external Teacher. >> >>Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 06:42:22 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:13:48 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? Message-ID: <00a501bdc5e6$36115f20$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 12th 1998 Dear Tony: I will try to interject comments in the text of your observations below. IMO no symbol can be pushed literally into a corner. It exists to evoke the intuition of the viewer, and encourages the thinking of the devotee who seeks to grasp the intent of the designer of the symbol and its value as representing a certain truth, or a series of truths. Sorry if this sounds awfully slippery -- but it is difficult to pin down a definite interpretation -- we each one of us, evolve our own. Please see the notes I add below. Dal > Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:29 PM > From: "Alpha (Tony)" > Subject: Re: - What does Theosophy deal with ? >Paul wrote: >>Dallas wrote: >> >>> 1. The manifested Universe we sense in various ways emanates from the >>> ABSOLUTE indescribable "background" which forms the timeless and >>> dimensionless basis for all our limitations in time and space. >> >>"Background" is an interesting term. >> >>On the first (un-numbered) page of PROEM ("The Secret Doctrine", 1888) we >>find: >> >>"On the first page is an immaculate white disk within a dull black ground." > >THEN: >"On the following page, the same disk, but with a central point." > >Is the following page "on" the same leaf, hence literally the same disk, >within the leaf (the dull black ground)? But with a central point. ===================================================== DAL: I have no idea what the physical "leaf" or "leaves" look like and must depend on HPB's description. There is a change from a white disc to a white disc with a point as I see it. The "germ" in the "egg" is introduced there. It is Kosmic as well as human -- since man is the microcosm of the Macrocosm. ============================================= > >The text commences, "AN Archaic Manuscript - a collection of palm leaves. . >. ." Here it seems as if only one palm leaf is referred to - what about the >other leaves. Do they relate to other Kosmos? Or to other >Manvantaras/Pralayas....? like leaves on a "tree?" =================================================== DALLAS: Again, I would say that that is not important, as each manifestations of Kosms is a reproduction of the continuing effects of the one primary and indefinable Causeless Cause. It is our embodied minds that demand definition and precision in limitations, while to my understanding, these symbols are reflective of the general rules of "Analogy and Correspondence" which HPB says obtain throughout the whole system. The symbols may indeed represent many Kosmoses simultaneously, or the One Grand KOSMOS -- or, also Mankind as a developing UNIT and each individual HUMAN SOUL as an individual development that mirrors the vast whole. ========================================== >> >>Further down it states: >> >>"Only the face of the Disk being white and the ground all around black, >>shows clearly that its plane is the only knowledge, dim and hazy though it >>still is, that is attainable by man." > >This seems to be a long way from "an immaculate white disk,"and man can only >reach the FACE of the Disk, and yet it is still the same disk. >an immaculate white disk within >a central point, is this only on the face of the disk, does it spring out of >the disk? Does it relate to the dull black ground? ====================================================== Dallas: I am not able to grasp what you seem to observe here. We have dull background, or DARKNESS; Circumference; White Disc, Central Dot. These are plane surface renderings of that which is a volume a Sphere. We have to visualize more than just a surface. There is a paradox: " the Center which is everwhere and the Circumference which is no-where." This expresses to me the idea of the illimitable and incommensurate quantities we are dealing with on the plane of archetypes -- a time and period prior to actual concretizaton in such matter as we can grasp. ======================================= > >Tony > > >> >>What is "immaculate white disk"? Space? It (only) *represents* "Kosmos in >>Eternity". It is "within" a "dull black ground". Why dull? It seems a >>curious term. Is dull black ground symbol of Be-ness =================================================== DAL: Be-ness -- Absoluteness -- the indefinable -- ever BEING, etc.... ================================================= > >>What of "disk" and "Disk" (spot the difference)? It is not circle or sphere >>or ring, for example. What of the "face" of the "Disk"? Is it literally: >>"being", "white" (as distinct from Be-ness, black)? >> >>Before PROEM (un-numbered page) is a 'blank' page. No words/text are on it; >>no-thing. But what's "within"? >> >>Comments/clarifications most welcome. >> >>Kindest regards, >>Paul (Bazzer) >> > > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 06:54:12 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:34:35 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #356 Message-ID: <00a601bdc5e6$3757e8e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 12th 1998 Dear Murray: I have never found a quick answer to your question as to how to draw close to the Masters. But wiser ones than I have said that it should be our aim to do that. 1. The proximity of "Masters" is not a physical but a psychological distance, as you seem to intuit (and as I would estimate it). It you take into account the 7-fold divisions of Man and Kosmos you will see that ATMA (Spirit) and BUDDHI (Wisdom) are common -- How does the embodied consciousness (you and me as we now are) or Kama-Manas approach to Atma-Buddhi ? How does the personal self, involved in the "1000 chords of desire" separate itself from those, and become One-centered on learning the TRUTH of all things ? The "bridge" is the HIGHER MANAS. HPB defines this in the KEY rather well and thoroughly. I suppose you have that book for reference ? For Kama-Manas ( or Lower manas) to contact the Master ( Atma-Buddhi) it has to fist grasp the idea that that Master is interior. It has been called the HIGHER SELF. Next, as I see it, it has to embody as practice in daily life, the ethics and rules of the life of a Manasic being. Briefly described, this is harmlessness, compassion and brotherhood. In other words it carves for itself out of its own material the bridge that lads it to the ineffable which is WITHIN. The Great Adepts whom we call Mahatmas, or Masters of Wisdom are Those who have successfully done this work. They are named variously as Adepts, Brothers, Mahatmas, Masters, Bodhisattvas, Arhats, Buddhas, Dhyan Chohans, etc... names that indicate their powers and functions -- and with which we are not directly concerned, as our present field of work is our own personality, which we need to study, understand and learn how to control. We are the beginners. Part of our progress on this great and uniform path is learning what we are, who we are and what we can do with the potential and actual powers we already possess. In other words a large portion of the work is self-initiation. Consider the vast mass of HPB's writings. How many of us have set to work to actually, in this incarnation, acquire a superficial working knowledge of what she wrote on behalf of the Adepts. Why did she do it ? What had the Adepts to profit from that arduous work ? What is our benefit? and, what is our responsibility ? How do we change "superficial" interest into convinced practice ? These and many more ideas I derive from my studies. I can only offer some of these and they should only be taken as the opinions of one person and subject to faults and therefore carefully scrutinized. Hope this is of some help, Dallas > Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 3:39 PM > From: "Murray Stentiford" > Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #356 >Hi Dallas > >In response to your: > >>Some ask if they can contact the Masters I see from recent postings. Is >>this not premature ? Is it not like the freshman in college asking if the >>President of the University will give him time to meet and handle his >>questions -- before he or she has acquired the wisdom to know what to ask >>and why that time is to be given to them. > >The literature documents the pathologies well enough, but I think that >anybody with the problems you refer to would hardly be moving towards them >in any sense that matters, let alone arriving. My own original question >was simply about *approaching* the Adepts - on closing the gap. > >The distance between us and them, between "your world and ours" - "quite a >different world" - as one of them wrote, is far less physical than inner. >Call it a psychological distance perhaps, or one of quality and scope of >intent. It is a distance which is closed in the measure that our view >widens beyond small concerns, our compassion kindles and our thought >deepens - above all, perhaps, to the degree that we find the desire to be >of value and service to other beings, rising within our being and unfolding >into action. > >This is the real journey towards them, and to arrive must be to see with >their vastness of vision, respond with their immensity of heart, and wield >the "thunderbolt" of their thought .... and the fact that we can begin to >conceive of them at all is perhaps the surest sign that we have what it >takes to get there. Something to set our compasses by. > >Murray > > >For those who want to know, the first quote (re world) is in letter 2 in >the two main accessible editions of The Mahatma Letters. I couldn't find >the thunderbolt one tonight but maybe somebody would like to tell us where >it is. > > >>Some ask if they can contact the Masters I see from recent postings. Is >>this not premature ? Is it not like the freshman in college asking if the >>President of the University will give him time to meet and handle his >>questions -- before he or she has acquired the wisdom to know what to ask >>and why that time is to be given to them. Are any of us so important ? We >>may think we are important, but does that make it necessary for the Masters >>to arrive at our doorstep ? And if a Master should visit us, have we the >>knowledge to recognize one ? Is this not one of the reasons why people who >>are either curious or impatient desire such contact -- and if they should be >>granted it, would they, like "poor Brown" (in MAHATMA LETTERS) recognize, be >>frightened, and turn away from the opportunity ? Each one ought to answer >>themselves on this subject. >> >>The answer is yes and no. As we advance in knowledge and usefulness we will >>find that opportunities arise that give us such contacts. Are we fitted to >>recognize them? Anyone who has read MAHATMA LETTERS will recollect the >>several conditions under which such contact may be made. We may also be >>sure that if our work and progress in active brotherliness continues we will >>attract the attention of the Wise and we will receive such "help" as we >>deserve. Such is the great law of assistance to all. But it does not >>satisfy the merely curious. > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 06:57:28 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 03:22:06 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <00a201bdc5e6$31b77ae0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 12th 1998 On the subject of contact with the Masters Dallas suggests: Does anyone (including myself), seriously think that they merit the attention of a high spiritual being such as a Master (Adept) ? Why should any of the Adepts have to manifest to anyone ? Will it make any difference at all to the situation ? Is anyone so valuable to the Theosophical Movement that they need to see a Master or converse with one ? Is anyone of us able to determine if our interlocutor is or is not a "Master ?" I ask myself these questions in all seriousness Supposing someone were to appear, speak, write or claim to be a "Master," what kind of knowledge/wisdom have we developed that would enable us to judge to attainment or position of such a respondent ? Have we framed the kind of questions that we would put to a Master ? Are we in control of our personalities ? Are we ready to drink of such spiritual wisdom as may be offered ? What about the draughts of spiritual wisdom already placed before us ? Have we studied HPB's writings ? Do we know what she says ? Have we figured out what is the difference between spiritual and mundane knowledge ? In effect, what are we sure of and what is it we desire to learn ? What are our motives in desiring Adept contact ? Suppose that the Adepts have already contacted us, would we be aware of it ? Some Theosophical writings, like those of W. Q. Judge [ in LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME ] aver that the Adepts live on the inner planes of OUR natures. What are those "inner planes" in our own natures that we are aware of ? Have we found traces of communications with the Adepts there ? Ever since HPB made the presence and actuality of the Adepts known [ ISIS II 98-105 ] there have been those who desired to receive actual proofs of their presence and nature. Starting with Sinnett, the desire for such connection and the desire for the proofs of Adept existence have multiplied. Phenomena were multiplied. HPB demonstrated again and again that she had adept powers . Did that silence the skeptics ? Do we take the evidence of the history as recorded by eye-witnesses to be factual or are we confirmed skeptics ? What does it take to convince us ? What then, do we have ? We have as evidence the SECRET DOCTRINE, the VOICE OF THE SILENCE, ISIS UNVEILED, the KEY TO THEOSOPHY and hundreds of articles, letters, etc... So much that most have not yet finished reading all those, much less actually studying them. How much of HPB's Theosophy do we know ? I say this because there are those who carp at being told that they need to study their Theosophy from her and her alone. If they were going to study mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or painting, or music, would they/we not have to study the vocabulary and notations in current use among such experts ? Is Theosophy taken to be so amorphous that there are no sure sources of information, and all is vague personal speculation ? I say IMHO that is not so. What have we so far developed in our own natures that is of Adept quality ? Where are our ambitions, desires, inclinations ? Are they focused on satisfying our curiosity or for attaining such knowledge as we may use to be of true help to others ? Do we think that if we were granted Adept powers over the invisible side of nature that we would use them for benevolence and good ? Or, would we use them selfishly and for our own gain ? Again, what is the nature of our own motives ? If we have not studied HPB's Theosophy, if we have liked what Annie Besant and Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa and others have written, [among those who claim "successorship" to HPB ] and called Theosophy, in preference to HPB we are in a situation of a very unstable nature. We are curious, but we do not KNOW. If for whatever reason we have rejected HPB, how can the Adepts who commissioned her to work as their agent side-step around her to come direct to us ? In the occult realm there is a law which requires all students to employ the channel through which they acquired their wisdom at all times. There is no stepping around that. So as we have our present Theosophy from and through HPB, why would we expect the Adepts to circumvent her ? Are we of the opinion that HPB is "dead and gone ?" It is my conviction that that is the greatest error that we could make. We are all her "children," and although she may not be wearing the personal garment and physiological garment that the HPB of history used, there is no reason why she as an Adept may not be invisibly present and active all around us ? Are we able to sense her ? If not why not ? Are we the ones who keep her at a distance? Why should anyone, far less an ADEPT, stoop to illumine our desires or satisfy our idle curiosity ? They do not require followers and are least interested in the selfish ambitions of anyone. They do not have to prove their existence to us. So why did HPB come and present Theosophy to the world on behalf of the Adepts? Is it not because humankind as a whole needs the information and the logic that it offers ? Are we to think that this event is not one of the most important in the history of the world -- I mean the diffusion in a concentrated manner of the knowledge and wisdom of occultism and the Esoteric Philosophy ? If this has been called a Transition Age, then the question is from where to where ? Is the Theosophical Movement no also part of that change, and is this not an opportunity for wisdom to be reintroduced ? Are we not HPB's heirs ? Do we not therefore carry some of the responsibility for its continuity and retransmission ? Does not Theosophy, when grasped, eliminate dogmatism, priestcraft, authoritative interpretations, and place us firmly on our own thinking "feet," and make us see that we are responsible for our natures and for our own Karma. It speaks of Unity because of the Spiritual essence in which we and everything else uniformly bathe. It is inescapable and unites us all into a vast interlocking and cooperative brotherhood. If we deny this, we deny our potential growth and the value of the knowledge that we have already acquired. Brotherhood is that quality when in application, that permits no irresponsible advantage taking of the weaker and the ignorant. It induces compassion and succor -- assistance to all who need and desire it. It speaks of universal Law and admits on no deviations or exceptions. It is a moral law and operates on the basis of our secret motives. In fact there are no secrets in Nature. [ see SD I 104-5, 93-96 ] We may not like this as a key fact, but it operates in Nature, nevertheless. It speaks of Universal evolution and indicates that humanity is at the balance point between Spirit and matter and represents that Intelligent link, which in its innumerable degrees, PERCEIVES all contrasts and is able to resolve them with logical reasonableness in a fashion that is impartial and of value to all beings involved. The Perceiver is always apart from and unaffected by his "perceptions." Finally that each of us has a conscious "Ray" of the Universal Spirit resident within and this serves us as a tutor if and when we (as personal beings) desire instruction. It is on this inner, or "spiritual" plane that the Adepts are UNIVERSALLY alive. They penetrate into every point of consciousness and are immediately aware of our needs and attainments. And we do not know these facts as part of our own conscious mental action until such time as we spiritualize our natures by becoming entirely harmless to all nature and every being in it. When the pupil is ready, it is said that the "Guru" will appear. If we reject the concept that we are interiorly divine in essence, and that the "god" of each of us is our Higher Self, what could any Adept do to bring us to a change in opinion ? It is we who keep the Adepts at a distance. Not the reverse. I again ask myself: What is the value of anyone of us to the great Theosophical Movement ? I notice that many seem to have only a vague idea of what constitutes messages or writings from Adepts. Or, if some are advanced, how to distinguish them from trashy statements. Is not the proof of their value interior to the writing or message? Have we the ability to distinguish value from trash ? If we doubt our capacities, then how do we sharpen and improve them ? Why not assiduously actually study what HPB has given us to learn from ? If we are repelled by HPB's writings, ought we not to examine the reason for such repulsion in us ? These are some of the ideas that flash through my mind as a result of reading a number of postings in the past 25 days that I have been inactive. By contacting Theosophy we have by our own Karma, returned to a condition and situation which reflects OPPORTUNITY. How do we make use of it ? That is for each of us to determine. The use of free will and the direction we give to the rest of our lives from here on is the real test of the student and the devotee. These are offered as my very humble opinions and are subject to your review and consideration. If there are questions I will be glad to answer. Best wishes to all, Dallas > Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 8:07 PM > From: "M K Ramadoss" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >Most will agree with you. > >mkr >At 10:47 AM 8/12/1998 +0900, you wrote: >>In my own experience I have never encountered another being on any plane >>other than the physical one we inhabit now. >> >> >>Master D >> >>At 05:34 PM 8/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >>>> >>>>The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached >>>>today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. >>>today. >>>> >>> >>> >>>They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not >>>physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the >>>current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to >>>approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather >>>than try to find any external Teacher. >>> >>>Jerry S. > > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 08:42:31 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:40:09 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980811213811.01740870@mail.eden.com> Message-Id: References: <3.0.2.32.19980812104726.0075659c@ozemail.com.au> <007d01bdc579$1b7355a0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> >>>They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not >>>physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the >>>current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to >>>approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather >>>than try to find any external Teacher. >>> >>>Jerry S. > > Jerry, I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately our TSA administration suffers from "authoritarianism extreme". An illness that has its roots in the ego (non-reincarnating ego, that is). It is as spiritual as a wad of chewing gum, and it leaves no room for democracy or spiritual reality. Rudy From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 09:54:29 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:49:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas Message-Id: <199808121449.KAA26636@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Hey gang, Like Kym, I've felt strong disagreement with Dallas's repeated claims to the effect that "without HPB the world would know nothing of Theosophy." But knowing that nothing I can say will make a dent in his certainties or those of others who believe this, I did not speak up. However, when he replies to her eloquent and well-reasoned objections to this claim with personal disrespect, with a message to the effect "You're willfully ignorant and therefore it's beneath me to engage your argument," I feel obliged to quote HPB. She wrote, in the intro to the SD: "These truths are in no sense put forward as a *revelation*; nor does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, now made public for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this book is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole." The only part of this passage which might possibly support Dallas's extravagant claim on HPB's behalf is the phrase "hitherto left unnoticed." But in fact these ideas were not hitherto entirely unnoticed; HPB was simply the first to introduce them to a *vast international* public. She deserves credit for that, but *not* for being the first person who ever taught the doctrines we know as Theosophy. I find it interesting that she portrays herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a precise description of what she did. But those who make wild claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all already. To whatever extent HPB did mythologize herself and her Masters, she has been outdone ten times over by her overzealous admirers. Cheers, PJ From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 10:24:14 1998 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:54:55 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D0CBBF.9FD@dlc.fi> References: <199808110602.BAA01915@proteus.imagiware.com> > > > Why do you think, O sons of God upon earth, that you sense the tiredness and the fatigue in your own bodies when you ought to be young, youthful, and virile? Why, this generation is experiencing the very stealing of the light, as though robbers would break in and leave no trace of their coming or of their going. > > These fallen angels, by deliberate design, have lusted after your light! They have come for you! They pipe their tunes and you dance. > > Shame on you! > > Light-bearers from the sun, I call you home! I rebuke you, I warn you, and I say: Leave them! Leave them all! For you have no part with them. And if you tarry, you enter unmistakably the death coil. > > Death is an addiction on earth in all of its forms! It becomes the binding habit of nicotine or alcohol or self-abuse or rock or drugs. Every addiction has its withdrawal syndrome, its crisis. You must be willing to withstand the inconvenience and the discomfort. > Maha Chohan 82 For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... mika perala From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 11:24:08 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:17:31 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas Message-ID: <35D1C01B.7A97@azstarnet.com> References: <199808121449.KAA26636@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Paul, You write in part: >I find it interesting that she [HPB] portrays > herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and > "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a > precise description of what she did. But those who make wild > claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to > attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a > whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a > silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all > already. But Paul, HPB does say she had an "authoritative source": Her Teachers Morya, Koot Hoomi and several others. You quote from HPB's Preface in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, but you stop short and LEAVE OUT the very next immediate statement. I don't think this is being fair to the issue under consideration, to Dallas, to Kym or to the rest of your readers. Here is HPB's statement with the part you choose NOT to quote: "These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, now made public for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this work is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes embodying the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and observation." So HPB writes (in plain English)that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories, etc. And, pray tell, Paul, who are these "more advanced students"? Could some of these more advanced students be Morya and Koot Hoomi? Master Koot Hoomi in his August 1888 letter to Colonel Olcott specifically says about the forthcoming publication of THE SECRET DOCTRINE: "I have also noted your thoughts about the Secret Doctrine. Be assured that what she has not annotated from scientific and other works we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or erroneous notion corrected and explained by her from the works of other Theosophists was corrected by me or under my instruction. It is a more valuable work than its predecessor, - an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to come." This is pretty plain English, Paul. And in the same volume of THE SECRET DOCTREINE from which you quote, HPB writes: "When the present work [The Secret Doctrine] was commenced, the writer, feeling sure that the speculation [by A.P. Sinnett] about Mars and Mercury was a mistake, applied to the Teachers [KH and M] by letter for explanation and an authoritative version. Both came in due time, and verbatim extracts from these are now given." I, 165 AN AUTHORITATIVE VERSION!!! And there are literally dozens of similar statements found through the Secret Doctrine where she writes that her source is the Adept Brotherhood. HPB herself also wrote from 1875 up to her death in 1891 that she had an "authoritative source": the occult knowledge of the Adept brotherhood of which KH and M. were members. You may not want to believe it, but she wrote it not one time but scores of times. Also consult THE MAHATMA LETTERS. Your "quoting" from the Secret Doctrine is a good example of taking HPB's words out of context. Why didn't you also quote her words immediately following? Daniel Caldwell K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Hey gang, > > Like Kym, I've felt strong disagreement with Dallas's repeated > claims to the effect that "without HPB the world would know > nothing of Theosophy." But knowing that nothing I can say will > make a dent in his certainties or those of others who believe > this, I did not speak up. However, when he replies to her > eloquent and well-reasoned objections to this claim with personal > disrespect, with a message to the effect "You're willfully > ignorant and therefore it's beneath me to engage your argument," > I feel obliged to quote HPB. She wrote, in the intro to the SD: > > "These truths are in no sense put forward as a *revelation*; nor > does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, > now made public for the first time in the world's history. For > what is contained in this book is to be found scattered > throughout thousands of volumes of the great Asiatic and early > European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto > left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to > gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one > harmonious and unbroken whole." > > The only part of this passage which might possibly support > Dallas's extravagant claim on HPB's behalf is the phrase > "hitherto left unnoticed." But in fact these ideas were not > hitherto entirely unnoticed; HPB was simply the first to > introduce them to a *vast international* public. She deserves credit for that, > but *not* for being the first person who ever taught the doctrines > we know as Theosophy. I find it interesting that she portrays > herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and > "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a > precise description of what she did. But those who make wild > claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to > attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a > whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a > silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all > already. > > To whatever extent HPB did mythologize herself and her Masters, > she has been outdone ten times over by her overzealous > admirers. > > Cheers, > PJ From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 12:59:18 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:55:55 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <7046b44d.35d1d72c@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-12 11:29:34 EDT, you write: >For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me >wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O >sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have >forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... > > >mika perala I think the Maha Chohan was probably sharing whatever it was that Morya put in his pipe. I must confess I find this talk of the Masters amusing rather than revealing. After all, what do we really know about them other than what they wrote and how do we know that any of that is the truth? Chuck From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 13:09:09 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:53:04 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <006501bdc61a$0f5acc20$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >In my own experience I have never encountered another being on any plane >other than the physical one we inhabit now. > > >Master D Some Master you are!! They are all over the inner planes if you listen carefully, you can't help but hear them. Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 13:21:03 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:59:41 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Teachers Message-ID: <007101bdc61a$fc162140$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > Also - if you are trying to "Open Chakras" then you >are not following the Blavatsky method. Her Method dealt >with nothing but the head chakra, (see BCW XII) all the >lower one's are dangerous, especially below the heart - >thats the CWL way. > - Jake J. > Actually, I thought her method dealth more with the Heart Chakra??? Although "dangerous" the below-the-heart chakras are much more direct in their initiations and have to be opened sooner or later in any case. Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 13:24:10 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:56:33 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-ID: <006c01bdc61a$8c0db5c0$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Regardless of what the many opinions on this list may be - there still is >only ONE form of TRUE initiation - Death and Re-birth. There are seven >insights or epiphanies that many who undergo them think are initiations. >But they are still conceptual and thus inherently Mayavic. > Baloney. You are using the term initiation in a very narrow sense, and even them I still have to say baloney. There are countless billions of initiations--which means merely a new learning experience, but in our context a new spiritual experience. One need not die to have a spiritual experience. Jerry S. >For those looking for a true mystery school - give up and go live with an >Indian Shaman. From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 13:50:37 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:25:25 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <008401bdc61e$93fea6a0$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > Why should any of the Adepts have to manifest to anyone ? They don't. It is we who need to manifest to them. > >Suppose that the Adepts have already contacted us, would we be aware of it ? Oh, they have. Apparently not. >Ever since HPB made the presence and actuality of the Adepts known [ ISIS II >98-105 ] there have been those who desired to receive actual proofs of their >presence and nature. Excuse me Dallas, but I knew of their presence long before I ever heard of HPB. > >If we have not studied HPB's Theosophy, if we have liked what Annie Besant >and Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa and others have written, [among those who >claim "successorship" to HPB ] and called Theosophy, in preference to HPB we >are in a situation of a very unstable nature. I am sorry that you feel this way. It is just this kind of attitude that has resulted in a fragmented TS. >We are curious, but we do not KNOW. KNOWing or Gnosis comes from direct experience, not from reading or studying book, not even HPB's books. >If for whatever reason we have rejected HPB Why on Earth do you keep insisting that we have "rejected" HPB?? If I say thanks to CWL for a few of his ideas that have helped me, that does not imply that I have rejected HPB. I also have been helped by G de Purucker, James Long and even Judge. As far as I am aware, I never even once rejected HPB over this. >are we >of the opinion that HPB is "dead and >gone ?" It is my conviction that that is the greatest error that we could >make. We are all her "children," Gack!! Even she would gack at this one. How about "students" instead of children, please. >? Are we not HPB's heirs ? Do we not therefore carry some of the >responsibility for its continuity and retransmission ? > I thought that the TSs were doing pretty much just this. >Does not Theosophy, when grasped, eliminate dogmatism, priestcraft, >authoritative interpretations, and place us firmly on our own thinking >"feet," and make us see that we are responsible for our natures and for our >own Karma. > I only wish that this were true. But dogmatism seems to be alive and well. You yourself say that HPB is the only real authority to study, thus "authoritative interpretations" are right in your own words, my friend. I don't know a single Theosophist would thinks that their karma is someone else's responsibility. Do you? >It speaks of universal Law and admits on no deviations or exceptions. Here is one more place where interpretation comes into play. My own study of HPB tells me that when she uses the term universe, she means only our own solar system of 7 planes. And deviations and exceptions are actually built into these laws and allowed at times (its called free will). >It is a moral law ... Ouch!! I really wish you wouldn't do this to me. The notion of a universal moral law is repugnant to me (I side with Chuck on this one). Morality is completely a human invention and, as I have already demonstrated in a past article, Kohlberg's moral scale clearly indicates that the higher we rise in morality the more relative good and evil look to us. >Finally that each of us has a conscious "Ray" of the Universal Spirit >resident within and this serves us as a tutor if and when we (as personal >beings) desire instruction. It is on this inner, or "spiritual" plane that >the Adepts are UNIVERSALLY alive. Agreed. >I notice that many seem to have only a vague idea of what constitutes >messages or writings from Adepts. Or, if some are advanced, how to >distinguish them from trashy statements. Is not the proof of their value >interior to the writing or message? Have we the ability to distinguish >value from trash ? One man's trash is another man's value. There are various shades or levels of Adepts, and each tries to reach an audience specific to his or her Teaching. Just because a teaching doesn't help me, for example, it does not conclude that it is trash because it may help someone else who is receptive to that idea. Thus I try to respect all Teaching and Teachers even though I may not agree with them. Thanks for your thoughts Dallas. I don't always agree with you, but I do enjoy your postings. Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 14:18:48 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:09:31 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D1E86B.8C37F55D@usa.net> References: <199808110602.BAA01915@proteus.imagiware.com> <35D0CBBF.9FD@dlc.fi> mika perala wrote: > > > For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me > wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O > sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have > forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... I think the "poetic language" is intentional and an integral part of the message. Bjorn From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 14:39:22 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:33:56 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: meeting Adepts on 'inner planes' Message-Id: <199808121930.OAA28137@proteus.imagiware.com> In-Reply-To: <006501bdc61a$0f5acc20$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jerry S: [writing to "Master D"] >>In my own experience I have never encountered another being on any plane >>other than the physical one we inhabit now. >> > >Some Master you are!! They are all over the inner planes if you >listen carefully, you can't help but hear them. Regardless of our development, there are other humans more advanced than we are. They can be found about us in everyday life, as well as on other planes. The Masters are more advanced than us. There may be some disagreement over *how advanced* they are, but that is only one of terminology. Taking the most advanced human as the Buddha, below him the Bodhisattvas, we have the Arhats and Masters at a lesser stage of development. Then come Chelas, Initiates, and then at our end of the scale the Seekers or Aspirants. We can take a certain class of people on this scale of development and call them "Masters". When we argue over if someone is developed enough to be a Master, we're disagreeing where on the scale to describe people as Masters. The scale exists, and if someone wants to call people at a lower point on the scale as Masters, they don't deny the scale of development or that people exist higher on the scale, on a higher rung, one that others may prefer to designate as "the Masters". I'd expect a higher diversity of creatures and subjectivity on the "higher planes". While it may be possible to meet Masters there, there are far more other beings and creatures to come across, many wanting to be to us whatever we're looking for, happily pretending to be Masters to the unwary. We might also say that it may be possible to meet a Mahatma on the Internet. Of the tens or hundreds of million of users, perhaps one signs on, browses the web, and even pens a few words of email. Anything's possible. We could then say that Masters are on the Internet, and that if you listen carefully, you can't help but hear them. It would be true, but equally unlikely, compared to the huge proportion of the Internet population that aren't Mahatmas. I'd say the same with "inner planes": there's the same huge proportion of the population that aren't Mahatmas, with many more willing to pretend than there are of the real thing, of genuine Masters. It all comes back to karma, to an inward readiness, to having given "the right knock", to being in a state of development and potential use in the service of humanity. If one is ready for a Teacher, one gets a Teacher, and that Teacher is appropriate to ones need. That could be in the form of a book, of a directed stream of thoughts that impinge on one's thinking, of a person that appears in one's life, or even an unexpected series of setbacks in life that reshape one's personality for the better. As to their role as Teachers, though, I expect it's only one of many things that they do. They are the elect of humanity, the most advanced, the nearest to human perfection. They may teach others that are a bit behind them. But look at us. How many of us spend our time as guru and teacher to others, as compared to the wide diversity of life roles, careers, activities in life that are offered us? A small percentage, perhaps. Reaching an even higher development of mind and *innate humanness*, the Masters, I'd think, would have an ever wider diversity of things to do, and would be involved in doing them. One important thing that they do, to a degree, but is primarily the role of the Dhyani-Chohans, is something that might be called "activity creating". (This is my thinking on the subject, what's occurring to me as I write this.) When something has been done many times, time after time for centuries, there's a pattern of thought etched in the akasha, an archetype created that makes it possible for others to easily understand and do the same thing. Before the archetype is "carved" in the akasha, in the background light of the world, it doesn't exist, in a certain sense, and cannot be done. It is, at that time, completely unconceivable, and there's no pattern of life which allows for doing it. These archetypes are experienced as instinct in animals and as contents of the unconscious and important figures in the psyche of humans. They form the basis of the "game of life", helping to define the game board and rules that we play by. When new experiences are pioneered, new reaches of thought explored for the very first time, touching upon things which have never before existed, where the astral light is a blank slate, we have what I was just calling "activity making". Given the time periods involved, with the Masters representing Fifth Round consciousness, something attained hundreds of millions of years hence, we have an type of pioneering into thoughts, feelings, and the doing of things of which we have little conception. The huge edifice of knowledge and experience that is being raised has been called the Tower of Infinite Thought. External physical life on our earth, Globe D, does not allow for so far reaching an exploration of the future possibilities of life. This exploration can be done *inwardly*, in terms of consciousness, and on other planes where the worlds allow for further progress -- the other globes of our chain, which are on the three higher planes of existence. The Mahatmas become what they are, to a great degree, due to their incarnation and experiences on those globes, on their respective higher planes. Can we meet those Mahatmas on the "inner planes"? No, I don't think so, because they are embodied on the other globes, each an objective world on its respective higher plane, each world requiring an appropriate "incarnation" and taking on of an appropriate personality to that world. We, as Globe D human personalities, can go no higher, and our "inner planes" are the subjective realms, the "spheres of effects" surrounding the physical earth. It requires a considerable advancement to find embodiment on one of the higher globes, and is something that very, very few can attain, expect in the Greater Initiations, like that of the Winter Solstice. There's a lot to talk about on the subject, but I'm running out of time, and I'm sure you'll find a number of points to discuss ... -- Eldon From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 15:47:58 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:32:52 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: What was in Morya's pipe? Message-ID: <35D1FBF4.325DADF4@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19980812105851.006a2914@ozemail.com.au> > >order to remain in physical human form, they must generate a certain > >amount of personal karma (probably why Moria had a pipe, for example). > .... asks - What was in his pipe? For some reason, when I ask experts in Theosophy that question, they turn all sorts of pretty colors and don't answer me. Especially when I point out that Morya would have been rejected by the E.S. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 16:21:27 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:02:12 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D202D4.D29FF648@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19980812104726.0075659c@ozemail.com.au> <007d01bdc579$1b7355a0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> Rodolfo Don wrote: > Jerry, I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately our TSA > administration suffers from "authoritarianism extreme". An illness that has > its roots in the ego (non-reincarnating ego, that is). It is as spiritual > as a wad of chewing gum, and it leaves no room for democracy or spiritual > reality. Democracy and anarchy are not the same thing. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 16:35:51 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:14:47 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: A Moral Law? Message-ID: <35D205C7.27A9@azstarnet.com> References: <008401bdc61e$93fea6a0$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Dallas TenBroeck wrote: It is a moral law ... Jerry Schueler wrote: Ouch!! I really wish you wouldn't do this to me. The notion of a universal moral law is repugnant to me (I side with Chuck on this one). Morality is completely a human invention and, as I have already demonstrated in a past article, Kohlberg's moral scale clearly indicates that the higher we rise in morality the more relative good and evil look to us. Daniel Caldwell queries: And what does all of what you write above really mean? Could we have some concrete examples? (1) If Albert goes around for 30 years raping women and never gets caught, once he's dead. . . . he's home free? (2) If I was a Gestapo officer who enjoyed bashing babys' heads against train cars, and I didn't get caught by the Allies or the Jewish Nazi hunters, once I'm dead. . . I'm home free? (3) If Joe is a lustful guy, who has sex with hundreds of guys, gets AIDS and then *purposely* infects scores of other guys with HIV, once he's dead. . . he's home free? These are just a few examples from real life. . . . Are there any "laws" inherent in the fabric of "Nature" which relate to such vile human behavior? Do such actions, etc. have any effect on the future of these three human beings once they have left the physical plane? (Assuming you believe in life after death, reincarnation, progression to higher planes, etc.) From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 18:42:30 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:18:42 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-12 17:26:56 EDT, you write: > Democracy and anarchy are not the same thing. > > Bart Lidofsky True. Anarchy is much more fun and I do one hell of a warlord. Chuck From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 18:55:35 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:30:33 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: A Moral Law? Message-ID: <2bfbb797.35d2259b@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-12 17:41:20 EDT, you write: >Are there any "laws" inherent in the fabric of "Nature" which >relate to such vile human behavior? > >Do such actions, etc. have any effect on the future of these >three human beings once they have left the physical plane? >(Assuming you believe in life after death, reincarnation, >progression to higher planes, etc.) > > There is no, reliable, empirical evidence that behavior in this life has any negative impact on future lives. On the contrary, it is possible to posit a system where such behavior would be rewarded with benefits in a future incarnation. Consider if you will a universal system that values only one thing, intelligence and has no sentiment whatsoever (all the mentioned cases are based on sentiment). It does not matter how the human intelligence is used (individual lifetimes are so brief and transitory in the universal schema as to be meaningless anyway), all that matters is that it is used the more efficiently it is used (efficiency being the amount of work the brain can do with the least electrical activity in the brain), the happier the universe is and reacts to the soul accordingly. Such a person would then reincarnate in conditions where his intelligence would be further encouraged to greater efficiency. Now, as conscience seems to be a terribly inefficient thing to have (it requires a lot of excess neuro-electrical activity for no purpose other than making the person feel bad) it would seem that the less conscience an individual has, the higher that individual is on the evolutionary scale. In such a cosmos (and given the opportunity to write a book-length dissertation I could probably make a good case that that is precisely the cosmos we have) any notion of morality is anti-evolutionary and not at all conducive to anything except to limit the individual and make societies better able to control folks. Chuck From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 19:12:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:08:00 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Celibacy is just the beginning Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980813162016.1f17e6c4@mail.iprolink.co.nz> Responding to Paul (Bazzer) >Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. > >See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: > [snip] During human >life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and >especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our >physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by >interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is >useless to give any longer explanation". I get it. If we stop using all our senses, we'll have the least impediment to the way of spiritual development. The organs of smell, hearing and sight are virtually extensions of the brain, and that of touch covers our whole body. Where's the nearest sensory deprivation tank? Murray PS: Is this one of those blinds we're told about? If we scratch below the surface, what's *really* going on here? Saying it's useless to give any longer explanation is probably just a factual statement that a deeper explanation would be almost guaranteed to be misunderstood by the public. They just wouldn't have the background or insight to see the real picture. We are 110-odd years down the track, and this is a kind of public forum .... I wonder if we're still in that bracket? :-) It'll be touch and go. Maybe what we really need to abstain from is making definitive statements based on a few things we've read until we're qualified by a bit more first-hand perception. [Quoting Paul more completely] >Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. > >See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: > >"The question is often asked, "Why should celibacy and chastity be a *sine >qua non* rule and condition of regular *chelaship*, or the development of >psychic and occult powers? The answer is contained in the Commentary. When >we learn that the "third eye" was once a physiological organ, and later on, >owing to the gradual disappearance of spirituality and increase of >materiality (Spiritual nature being extinguished by the physical), it became >an atrophied organ, as little understood now by physiologists as the >spleen - when we learn this, the connection will become clear. During human >life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and >especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our >physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by >interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is >useless to give any longer explanation". From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 19:48:39 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:05:02 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Teachers Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980813100502.00755238@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <007101bdc61a$fc162140$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> All the chakras must be opened in unison eventually. Has anyone tried rasing kundalini?? MD At 01:59 PM 8/12/98 -0400, you wrote: >> Also - if you are trying to "Open Chakras" then you >>are not following the Blavatsky method. Her Method dealt >>with nothing but the head chakra, (see BCW XII) all the >>lower one's are dangerous, especially below the heart - >>thats the CWL way. >> - Jake J. >> > > >Actually, I thought her method dealth more with the Heart Chakra??? >Although "dangerous" the below-the-heart chakras are much more >direct in their initiations and have to be opened sooner or later in >any case. > >Jerry S. > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 19:56:10 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:04:52 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980813100452.007522e4@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <006501bdc61a$0f5acc20$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Quick Sanity Questionnaire: 1) I hear strange voices in my head am I - a) in the astral planes listening to the masters b) insane c) subject of a CIA/Alien mind projection experiment 2) Whilst meditating my consciousneess seems to change vibration am I - a) experiencing a 'finer' level of reality - one that the 'doors of perception' are normally closed to b) channeling the vibration of a higher being c) deluding myself All I experience is but a projection of my own mind inside the astral planes, the sooner you learn this you sooner you will stop deluding yourself. MAYA MAYA MAYA MAYA MAYA MAYA Master D (descended - there's not much to do up there) At 01:53 PM 8/12/98 -0400, you wrote: >>In my own experience I have never encountered another being on any plane >>other than the physical one we inhabit now. >> >> >>Master D > > >Some Master you are!! They are all over the inner planes if you >listen carefully, you can't help but hear them. > >Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 20:05:37 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:58:25 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980813095825.00751e0c@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <006c01bdc61a$8c0db5c0$0a7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jerry Seinfield Wrote: >Baloney. You are using the term initiation in a very narrow sense, and >even them I still have to say baloney. There are countless billions of >initiations--which means merely a new learning experience, but in >our context a new spiritual experience. One need not die to have a >spiritual experience. > >Jerry S. NOS replies: I sid ONE TRUE INITIATION. There are many 'spiritual experiences' which the naive think are initiations - and yes one need not die to have a spiritual experience - but what of it? Unless you have died and I don't mean an NDE which is just another form of hallucination (albeit very inisghtful into the true nature of reality) and STOPPED COMPLETELY (laya state) - that is - all forms of change through thought - you will still be embedded in MAYA. All thoughtis Mayavic, all concepts are mayavic. For those interested in performing self-initiations I suggest reading the Rg Veda very thoroughly first and to understand what is meant by Vriti in Chetna (forgive my spelling if slightly out I have 3 books with different nomenclature). Then acquire some true SOMA. Do not attempt it by yourself though. But ask yourself, once I know everything and Understand completely (gnosis) what do I wnat then? Keep on Rocking Dazza From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 20:11:24 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:01:05 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: What was in Morya's pipe? Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980813100105.0075b868@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <35D1FBF4.325DADF4@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19980812105851.006a2914@ozemail.com.au> I still can't get over the blinkers on the TS. Lets just so the word big and loud because I know theres some ES lurkers and some suits that must read a bit of this - DRUGS Get over it. HPB used them, Sai Baba uses them to this day (I have seen him smoking marijuana with my own eyes). You can achieve what it takes a monk 50 years of meditation to reach on one good serving of SOMA (Stropharia Cubensis, Psilocybin Cubensis, Amarita Muscaria etc). Interesting aside the drug - GANESHA is 2,5-dimethoxy-3,4-dimethylamphetamine hydrochloride. "There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference" - William James, under nitrous oxide; 1882 Nitrous Oxide can be purchased quite cheaply from gas suppliers or in the form of whipped cream bulbs. You will need a soda syphon to extract the gas from the capsules. Do not inhale more than 2 bulbs at once. Immediately assume your meditation position and relax into it. Any thought you have will begin the spiral back to matter so the more you meditate the better the effects will be. Nitrous Oxide is completely safe for humans - my wife used it during her labour and I beleive it is still used by dentists. Morya was smoking Hashish - this is common for Bodhisattva's who wish to forget their nature - it is very hard communicating with other people when you know they are illusory. Why is there always little red and white mushrooms in pictures with fairies and gnomes?? Darren (channelling Luke Skywalkers Egregore) Bart Simsofsky wrote: > For some reason, when I ask experts in Theosophy that question, they >turn all sorts of pretty colors and don't answer me. Especially when I >point out that Morya would have been rejected by the E.S. > > Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 20:12:36 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:20:34 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <000401bdc650$44d476e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 12th 1998 Dear Mike: Surely reading what is attributed to a "Maha Chohan 82" would make anyone wonder about the sanity of those transmitting such things. Makes no sense as far as I can see it. So who is being duped ? If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a nowhere land. Of course this is IMHO entirely. Theosophy as I see and learned it from HPB always makes sense and appeals to the highest powers of thought and intuition in us. It has nothing to do with our personal situations. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 8:37 AM > From: "Mike Perala" > Subject: ECP Masters >> > Why do you think, O sons of God upon earth, that you sense the tiredness and the fatigue in your own bodies when you ought to be young, youthful, and virile? Why, this generation is experiencing the very stealing of the light, as though robbers would break in and leave no trace of their coming or of their going. >> > These fallen angels, by deliberate design, have lusted after your light! They have come for you! They pipe their tunes and you dance. >> > Shame on you! >> > Light-bearers from the sun, I call you home! I rebuke you, I warn you, and I say: Leave them! Leave them all! For you have no part with them. And if you tarry, you enter unmistakably the death coil. >> > Death is an addiction on earth in all of its forms! It becomes the binding habit of nicotine or alcohol or self-abuse or rock or drugs. Every addiction has its withdrawal syndrome, its crisis. You must be willing to withstand the inconvenience and the discomfort. >> Maha Chohan 82 > >For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me >wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O >sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have >forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... > > >mika perala > > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 20:42:34 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 21:32:22 EDT From: "Brant Jackson" Subject: Re: Teachers Message-ID: <2fae0d50.35d24228@aol.com> Jake: I was disappointed to see that you missed the tenor of my remarks, and rather seem to think that they were some personal statement of mine about myself. I try real hard not to speak about about myself, following the old adage, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than to speak, and remove all doubt!" I find the less I say, the wiser I seem to those that don't know me [now what did he mean by that???] Jake, you don't know anything about me other than my comments here, please resist the use of ad hominem comments and respond to the topic being debated. the "mail order chakra" comment was sarcasm, addressed to the AMORC's technique of doing that in their monographs - which I consider madness if their book knowledge techniques actually work. By the way, I am currently wresting with the 'futility of knowledge" issue. After having studied much and deep over my lifetime, I find myself up against the realization that it is pretty much meaningless unless it serves some purpose. I don't trust mere book knowledge, given the standard by which people judge book knowledge - which is their own level of experience and knowledge. Individuals therefore skoff at that with which they are not familiar, and that which offends their own self-concepts. Unfortunately, I long ago realized that am also very good at deluding myself about things related to me - I suspect that I am like other people in this regard - and need someone or something outside myself to hit me up side the head every so often. What are you doing with your knowledge, and what purpose is it serving you? Brant Jackson From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 22:43:51 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:23:42 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D25C3E.C3E78C3D@sprynet.com> References: Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-08-12 17:26:56 EDT, you write: > > > Democracy and anarchy are not the same thing. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > True. Anarchy is much more fun and I do one hell of a warlord. Dr. Psionic: Warlord. Has a nice ring. Of course, so does "Chuck the Heretical Warlord". "Bart the Warlord" doesn't really make it, however. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Wed Aug 12 23:43:52 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:13:26 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Using Theosophical texts as weapons Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980812221326.007a1100@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808121940.OAA28971@proteus.imagiware.com> Daniel wrote to Paul: >Your "quoting" from the Secret Doctrine is a good example of taking >HPB's words out of context. Why didn't you also quote her words >immediately following? Daniel, you utilize partial quotations that help you prove a point - if you demand that others post bigger chunks of quotations, even though it doesn't apply to one's argument, in reality, for complete fairness, one should quote entire books. Is this what you seek? What are the limits, according to your standards? Do not hold Paul or anyone to the same rules you do not yourself adhere to. But, more importantly, in your zeal to prove Paul vacant, you have missed his main point. His point was (with some addition of mine included - fairly or unfairly): People have taken the writings of HPB and made them into weapons of war. Same as all fundamentalists, really. If over-zealous followers of HPB come upon someone who disagrees with them, they accuse them immediately of ignorance and dismiss them. Dallas does this with an impressive touch of frost which seems to have been carefully nurtured over the years. For those who have a need for "authority" in their lives, Dallas is an icon. For those who feel little need for "authority" - who, like me, prefer to listen to their 'inner voice' or 'inner guru' already present in all of us - Dallas and a few others on this list are a major turn-off. Those who use the writings of HPB to degrade and humiliate instead of uplift and comfort are the ones responsible for the slow death of the TS and the ridicule of HPB. But, Paul is right - trying to talk to Theosophical fundamentalists is like spitting in the wind. They neither listen or give much of a damn, anyway. Kym From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 00:13:52 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:06:01 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: A "Master" on theos-talk?? Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980812230601.007a58e0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808121143.GAA24524@proteus.imagiware.com> Dallas wrote: >I am of the opinion that some moderation in language is more indicative of >sagacity than the use of expletives, barnyard terms, etc, which only denote >to me a lack of that kind of understanding that leads to true discussion. Where in my post to you were there "expletives, barnyard terms, etc.?" Where, Dallas? >I hope you will excuse my bluntness. Am I to excuse your bluntness as self-expression while you consider my bluntness a lack of utilizing proper reading material (which, in real terminology means "ignorance")? Well, I know that the spiritual answer is: Yes - but it is very hard to do. >Can you succinctly say what it is you want to learn ? I already have - but let me go further and ask you something directly. I want to learn why you imply that those who seek a visit from the "Masters" is merely no more than a matter of them being non-deserving? How do you know they are non-deserving? Is there something in their manner or writings that tell you so? How do you know what is in their hearts and souls? How do you know what is in the hearts and souls of the "Masters" - which means, how do you know that those who seek the "Masters" have not already lain eyes upon them? How do you know that they, or you, did not pass this very day, a "Master?" How do you know that a "Master" did not, this very day, pass a person on this list (even an "ignorant" one) and slightly nod their head to the person as a sign of recognition and love and encouragement? How do you know what type of person a "Master" wants to visit? Let's take a really big brain sojourn: How do you know, Dallas, that I (gasp and faint!) am not a "Master?" Are you so sure that a "Master" will be in the manner and form you think they will be? Maybe a "Master" will come as a CHALLENGER of those who follow HPB as a test to see just what they have learned - to see how they treat those they perceive as "ignorant" - to see how much Compassion followers of HPB manifest in those they may differ with - to see how much the advocates of HPB use love to spread Theosophy - to see how they respond to people who are angry, hurt, and lost - to see how they respond to people who have had different life experiences and do not write, talk, or look at life the same way. How do you know, Dallas? How do you know you're not talking to a "Master" now? You claim that you are "humble" and at times could be "wrong." Yet, you are quick to peg those who question HPB's writings as "ignorant." So, obviously, you feel and think you know enough to recognize when someone is misinterpreting HPB, which further suggests that you are some kind of "expert." Ok, so be it - but with that "expertise" comes extra-responsibility. So, keeping that in mind (your extra-responsibility), and reflecting on how you address me and others who disagree or argue with you, do you believe, in your heart, that a "Master" would be pleased to read your posts? That is what I wish to learn, Dallas. Kym From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 00:43:51 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:31:50 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Using Theosophical texts as weapons Message-ID: <35D27A46.ADFEA359@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980812221326.007a1100@pophost.micron.net> Rilke wrote: > > Daniel wrote to Paul: > > >Your "quoting" from the Secret Doctrine is a good example of taking > >HPB's words out of context. Why didn't you also quote her words > >immediately following? > > Daniel, you utilize partial quotations that help you prove a point - if you > demand that others post bigger chunks of quotations, even though it doesn't > apply to one's argument, in reality, for complete fairness, one should > quote entire books. Is this what you seek? What are the limits, according > to your standards? Actually, complete Theosophical texts make the best weapons, especially the Collected Writings of H. P. B. You throw a volume of that, and it can really raise a lump on someone's head. And you still have 14 shots left. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 06:39:21 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:26:34 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Approaching adepts Message-ID: <35D24ED9.7BC7@dlc.fi> References: <199808112339.SAA12774@proteus.imagiware.com> Jerr wrote: > > They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not > physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the > current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to > approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather > than try to find any external Teacher. If I want to study music, and I want to find a best possible teacher, an 'adept' of his/her own art, I look and can find him/her in the physical plane. Same goes with all the other 'arts'. But this is not true for spirituality, I believe this is what you are saying? And if there are these 'real adepts' only in inner planes, do we personally need them? I am sure there are lot of people here 'on earth' that we can learn from. mika Perala From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 06:46:15 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:59:19 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Saving time and confusion Message-ID: <35D24877.5D54@dlc.fi> References: <199808112227.RAA07300@proteus.imagiware.com> Paul J. wrote > > Mika's reply to Nicholas set me off on a tangent. How important > it is to "save time and confusion"? First reaction: gee, if only > I'd stuck with Cayce and ARE back in 1978 when I started reading > theosophical books in their library, and never gotten involved with Theosophy, > wouldn't that have saved me an awful lot of time and confusion? > (Not a new thought for me by any means but reinspired by Mika.) > But then, had I not opened that window, would I appreciate Cayce > the way I do now? Would I perceive him in a way that would be > fresh and interesting enough to inspire a book anyone would read? > And surely, had I never had an adolescent phase as a Baha'i, five > more years of time and confusion would have been saved. But > wasn't a lot gained in those years that has stood me in good > stead? You`re quite right. Perhaps these 'phases' are essential stepping-stones so that we can go on with our 'path'(or whatever), unless, of course, we stick to old patterns with our teeth and nails (Finnish expression?)and refuse to see these 'phases' as what they really are. > At another level, if I'd been celibate for life, had no romantic > entanglements, wouldn't *that* have saved a huge amount of time > and confusion? How about having no siblings, half-siblings, or > step-siblings (I'm one of 9 in all)-- now that *really* would > have saved a lot of time and confusion. Jobs and houses and > friends have all involved t&c too-- away with them! > > In short, everything worthwhile in life seems to involve plenty > of t&c, so advising people to "save" them doesn't strike me as > wise. Moreover, the thought that my books might cause confusion > in readers is actually encouraging. (Although the amount of time > some people have devoted to attacking them seems bizarre.) Times > of greatest confusion are often times of major breakthroughs. > Most people make up their minds about a subject and then manage to > avoid encountering anything that would shake up their settled opinions. > As true of Theosophists who believe HPB never lied as of skeptics > who think she never told the truth. To have shaken up the certainties of > people at both ends of the spectrum at once is hardly something > to be ashamed of. As Francis Bacon wrote: "If a man will begin > with certainties, he will end in doubts; but if he will be > content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." > > Not there yet but maybe in a few lifetimes, > > Paul > > PS-- Mika, thanks, glad to see you back. I find it amusing that > the same people who regard Greg T. as a hero for "debunking" CWL > often hate my books, yet Greg was one of my biggest supporters > from way back. That`s familiar to me too. Some theosophist friends of mine here are happy with Tillett`s book, but when I tell them about your book, they become very, very skeptic. It´s some kind of tabu. Glad to see you are here too, Paul, after all that has happened... I`ve been lurking here most of the time, but I have not felt like talking. mika From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 09:36:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:12:36 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Celibacy is just the beginning Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980813101236.007544d8@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980813162016.1f17e6c4@mail.iprolink.co.nz> I suggest viewing the film Altered States - William Hurt uses a floatation tank in conjunction with Peyote to regress to the source. Nitrous Oxide can be used to shut of the senses as well as PCP and Ketamine. Of course meditation will do the job if you've got 15 years of time to spend perfecting the art. Other films worth seeing- Sex and Zen and its sequel, Erotic Ghost Story and it's sequel - all give the chinese Taoist view of Sex and energy exchange and are very revealing - did you know that unless both partners orgasm simultaneously one will ened up drawing energy from the other. As most men can't last more than a couple of minutes we end up giving our partner's a whole wad of Yang (forgive me if I mean Yin I always confuse the two). And a book on Sex and Energy - Alchemy - Johannes Fabricious And the best Pornographic Film ever made - equally loved by men and women : Sensual Exposure (this is very tasteful, erotic and can be watched by any without embarassment). SEX - we wouldn't be here without it Master D At 10:08 AM 8/13/98 +1200, you wrote: >Responding to Paul (Bazzer) > >>Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. >> >>See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: >> [snip] During human >>life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and >>especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our >>physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by >>interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is >>useless to give any longer explanation". > > >I get it. If we stop using all our senses, we'll have the least impediment >to the way of spiritual development. The organs of smell, hearing and sight >are virtually extensions of the brain, and that of touch covers our whole body. > >Where's the nearest sensory deprivation tank? > >Murray > >PS: Is this one of those blinds we're told about? If we scratch below the >surface, what's *really* going on here? Saying it's useless to give any >longer explanation is probably just a factual statement that a deeper >explanation would be almost guaranteed to be misunderstood by the public. >They just wouldn't have the background or insight to see the real picture. > >We are 110-odd years down the track, and this is a kind of public forum .... >I wonder if we're still in that bracket? :-) It'll be touch and go. Maybe >what we really need to abstain from is making definitive statements based on >a few things we've read until we're qualified by a bit more first-hand >perception. > > > >[Quoting Paul more completely] > >>Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. >> >>See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: >> >>"The question is often asked, "Why should celibacy and chastity be a *sine >>qua non* rule and condition of regular *chelaship*, or the development of >>psychic and occult powers? The answer is contained in the Commentary. When >>we learn that the "third eye" was once a physiological organ, and later on, >>owing to the gradual disappearance of spirituality and increase of >>materiality (Spiritual nature being extinguished by the physical), it became >>an atrophied organ, as little understood now by physiologists as the >>spleen - when we learn this, the connection will become clear. During human >>life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and >>especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our >>physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by >>interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is >>useless to give any longer explanation". > > > > > From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 11:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:14:08 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Theosophical Queries Message-Id: <199808131614.AA05432@lafn.org> THEOSOPHICAL QUERIES: ANSWER TO A LETTER By H. P. Blavatsky Now it is a fundamental doctrine of Theosophy that the "separateness" which we feel between ourselves and the world of living beings around us is an illusion, not a reality. In very deed and truth, all men are one, not in a feeling of sentimental gush and hysterical enthusiasm, but in sober earnest. As all Eastern philosophy teaches, there is but ONE SELF in all the infinite Universe, and what we men call "self" is but the illusionary reflection of the ONE SELF in the heaving waters of earth. True Occultism is the destruction of the false idea of Self, and therefore true spiritual perfection and knowledge are nothing else but the complete identification of our finite "selves" with the Great All. It follows, therefore, that no spiritual progress at all is possible except by and through the bulk of Humanity. It is only when the whole of Humanity has attained happiness that the individual can hope to become permanently happy -- for the individual is an inseparable part of the Whole. Hence there is no contradiction whatever between the altruistic maxims of Theosophy and its injunction to kill out all desire for material things, to strive after spiritual perfection. For spiritual perfection and spiritual knowledge can only be reached on the spiritual plane; in other words, only in that state in which all sense of separateness, all selfishness, all feeling of personal interest and desire, has been merged in the wider consciousness of the unity of Mankind. This shows also that no blind submission to the commands of another can be demanded, or would be of any use. Each individual must learn for himself, through trial and suffering, to discriminate what is beneficial to Humanity; and in proportion as he develops spiritually, i.e., conquers all selfishness, his mind will open to receive the guidance of the Divine Monad within him, his Higher Self, for which there is neither Past nor Future, but only an eternal NOW. Again, were there no "poor," far from the "benefits of civilization being lost," a state of the highest culture and civilization would be attained, of which we cannot now form the faintest conception. Similarly, from a conviction of the impermanence of material happiness would result a striving after that joy which is eternal, and in which all men can share. Throughout the whole letter of our esteemed correspondent there runs the tacit assumption that happiness in material, physical life is all-important; which is untrue. So far from being the most important, happiness in this life of matter is of as little importance in relation to the bliss of true spiritual life as are the few years of each human cycle on earth in proportion to the millions and millions of years which each human being spends in the subjective spheres, during the course of every great cycle of the activity of our globe. With regard to faculties and talents, the answer is simple. They should be developed and cultivated for the service of Humanity, of which we are all parts, and to which we owe our full and ungrudging service. (From Blavatsky Collected Writings 11:104-6) ******************* -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 11:36:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:36:25 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: How do you spell "celibacy?" Message-ID: <000001bdc6d8$83ee25a0$788bf2c2@bazzer> Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <35D06DB9.45E4BE93@sprynet.com> Bart wrote: > That was the essential > point Leadbeater was trying to make when he taught his students > masturbation: it is better to relieve the sexual tension than it is to > live with it. And there we have it. Evidence of CWL's *direct opposition* to the time-honoured tradition of training of (occult) students. Also, how were the students "taught"? What age were they? Maybe the Leadbeater fans out there could enlighten us. "Do not believe that lust can ever be killed out if gratified or satiated, for this is an abomination inspired by Mara. It is by feeding vice that it expands and waxes strong, like to the worm that fattens on the blossom's heart." (The Voice of the Silence, pg 17). Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer). From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 12:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:31:24 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D3693C.550B@dlc.fi> References: <199808121940.OAA28971@proteus.imagiware.com> > > From: "Bjorn Roxendal" > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:09:31 -0600 > Subject: Re: ECP Masters > > mika perala wrote: > > > > > > For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me > > wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O > > sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have > > forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... > > I think the "poetic language" is intentional and an integral part of the > message. What purpose does this 'intent' serve? mika perala Finland From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 12:32:37 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:42:39 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D36BDF.F03@dlc.fi> References: <199808130444.XAA27855@proteus.imagiware.com> ow > > From: "Dallas TenBroeck" > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:20:34 -0700 > Subject: Re: ECP Masters > > Aug 12th 1998 > > Dear Mike: > > Surely reading what is attributed to a "Maha Chohan 82" would make anyone > wonder about the sanity of those transmitting such things. Makes no sense > as far as I can see it. So who is being duped ? We all are!! 8) > If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a nowhere > land. > > Of course this is IMHO entirely. > > Theosophy as I see and learned it from HPB always makes sense and appeals to > the highest powers of thought and intuition in us. It has nothing to do > with our personal situations. > But 'highest powers of thought and intuition', if we use them, always reflect to our personal situations, of course. Mika Perala Finland From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 13:22:24 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:07:24 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: How do you spell "celibacy?" Message-ID: <81414d76.35d32b5d@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-13 12:40:42 EDT, you write: >And there we have it. Evidence of CWL's *direct opposition* to the >time-honoured tradition of training of (occult) students. I'm no fan of CWL's ideas, but this so called "time honored tradition" is not taken seriously by any occult students except for a few ineffectual wackos. There is not one shred of experiental evidence that celibacy in any way improves either ability or wisdom. On the contrary, the available evidence from history would seem to indicate that it only leads to self-righteousness at best and insanity at worst. The study of the celibate is the study of pathology at its worst. Chuck From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 14:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:17:52 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: celibacy Message-Id: <199808131917.AA04120@lafn.org> Chuck: >I'm no fan of CWL's ideas, but this so called "time honored tradition" is not >taken seriously by any occult students except for a few ineffectual wackos. Celibacy, alone and with little or no attraction for divinity and virtue, can produce insanity. But when one is ready it is essential. Patanjali and generations of yogis, many known for a higher wisdom and compassion know that. Shankara and the renunciate order he founded know that. Buddha and his celibate monks know that. No, not every celibate monk or nun is an arhat, bodhisattva or sage -- but no arhat, bodhisattva or sage can reach that stage without celibacy. Which by the way, means much more than abstaining from copulation. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 14:36:32 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Out of context? Message-Id: <199808131922.PAA13188@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Daniel, You ask why I LEAVE OUT [sic] the next statement from HPB that you quote. It's because the question dealt with by Dallas and Kym was *simply* whether HPB was the first and sole source of these teachings, or whether they were previously available. I stopped quoting when I got HPB's own answer to that question. Where she got the small proportion of her SD that isn't found "scattered" in thousands of other texts is irrelevant to the question under discussion. If she derived *some* teachings from more advanced students, what relevance does this have to the question of whether she then blended together a wide variety of different teachings from different "advanced students" past and present, many of which were in writing-- which is what she seems to be saying? And by the way, don't "scientific or other works" include every single work ever published? And unpublished? Thus perhaps leaving the part "given or suggested" as a rather small proportion of the whole? The SD has after all a huge number of citations. As for the Mars/Mercury controversy, you shout about the AUTHORITATIVE VERSION!!! mentioned by HPB as if this passage somehow endorses the entire SD as being such. She is clearly talking about *what those particular teachers taught about Mars and Mercury*, which Sinnett got confused. You seem to be the one taking things out of context here. Of course M. and K.H. could give an authoritative version of what they themselves had earlier taught on a specific topic-- and that's just as true if they were secondary personalities of HPB as if they were honcho occult know it alls. Your favorite target, Paul From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 14:51:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:45:43 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Celibacy is just the beginning Message-ID: <35D34267.27F840D5@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19980813101236.007544d8@ozemail.com.au> Darren wrote: > Nitrous Oxide can be used to shut of the senses as well as PCP and > Ketamine. Of course meditation will do the job if you've got 15 years of > time to spend perfecting the art. Nitrous Oxide acts like Carbon Monoxide, except that it does not permanently attach itself to the red blood cells, but is released as soon as it makes the round trip through the body. A sufficient amount can kill, however. Other dangers: If inhaling directly from a tank, you can freeze your lungs, or easily overdose. The quality most widely available contains impurities which are OK to be eaten, but poisonous when inhaled. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 15:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:19:00 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D34A34.2DF4BBF7@usa.net> References: <000401bdc650$44d476e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > > Surely reading what is attributed to a "Maha Chohan 82" would make anyone > wonder about the sanity of those transmitting such things. Makes no sense > as far as I can see it. It makes plain simple common sense to me. In the passage quoted below it is simply stated that "we" (people of this generation, in the western civilization) are subject to influences that tend to dissipate the life force ("light" or "kundalini"). Some of those influences are listed: nicotine, alcohol, self-abuse, rock music and drugs. They are declared to be unhealthy, producing "death" rather than life. We are urged to wean ourselves from addiction to these elements of our civilization, even though it will require the passing through some witdrawal symptoms. So, Dallas, please explain why statemets such as these do not make any sense and why they would indicate questionable sanity on the part of its transmitter. > If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a nowhere > land. Then, please, explain also what is, in your opinion, so very "untheosophic" about these statements. > Of course this is IMHO entirely. Yes, of course - entirely in YVHO :) > Theosophy as I see and learned it from HPB always makes sense and appeals to > the highest powers of thought and intuition in us. It has nothing to do > with our personal situations. This last statement must be a mistake? You claim that theosophy has nothing to do with our personal situation? Such as what is good, what is bad for us etc? I am sure I could give you hundreds of references from HPB to those kinds of statements. Bjorn PS ("82" was put there as a reference to the year this was recorded) > >> > >> > Why do you think, O sons of God upon earth, that you sense the > tiredness and the fatigue in your own bodies when you ought to be young, > youthful, and virile? Why, this generation is experiencing the very stealing > of the light, as though robbers would break in and leave no trace of their > coming or of their going. > >> > These fallen angels, by deliberate design, have lusted after your > light! They have come for you! They pipe their tunes and you dance. > >> > Shame on you! > >> > Light-bearers from the sun, I call you home! I rebuke you, I warn > you, and I say: Leave them! Leave them all! For you have no part with them. > And if you tarry, you enter unmistakably the death coil. > >> > Death is an addiction on earth in all of its forms! It becomes > the binding habit of nicotine or alcohol or self-abuse or rock or drugs. > Every addiction has its withdrawal syndrome, its crisis. You must be willing > to withstand the inconvenience and the discomfort. > >> Maha Chohan 82 > > From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 15:36:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:37:00 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D34E6C.8BA8DAE0@usa.net> References: <199808121940.OAA28971@proteus.imagiware.com> <35D3693C.550B@dlc.fi> mika perala wrote: > > > > mika perala wrote: > > > > > > > > > For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me > > > wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O > > > sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have > > > forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... > > > > I think the "poetic language" is intentional and an integral part of the > > message. > > What purpose does this 'intent' serve? Yes, why are people using poetic language at all? Why do people enjoy poetry? Your answer is probabley as good as mine. Personally I think that our feeling nature, and intuitional faculties, often respond to poetic language in a way that purely intellectual discourse can not accomplish. Bjorn Bjorn From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 15:51:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:43:11 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Advice to Govert---C Leadbeater, comic book fantasy & Thomas book Message-ID: <35D34FDF.8588E01@usa.net> References: <008f01bdc587$67626380$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > > > Without HPB's writings (accredited several times by the Masters) we would > have no Theosophy. If you read Key to Theosophy you will see that HPB very clearly contradicts this statement of yours, repeatedly. Bjorn From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 16:04:18 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:55:36 -0400 From: "Reed Carson" Subject: Paul quoting out of context Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980813205536.006bf104@mail.webspan.net> Dear Paul, Let me also observe that you quote out of context. In the instance under discussion I believe your position is slippery a number of times.=A0 Unfortunately, to trace out all the "you saids" and "he saids" would make a document that would be hardly readable.=20 But let us try this new case of quoting out of context that I believe you have just "committed". You say: =A0Where she got the SMALL PROPORTION of her SD that isn't found "scattered" in thousands of other texts is irrelevant to the question under discussion.=A0 If she derived *SOME* teachings from more advanced students, what relevance does this have to the question of whether she then blended together a wide variety of different teachings from different "advanced students" past and present, many of which were in writing-- which is what she seems to be saying? =A0...=A0 Thus perhaps leaving the part "given or suggested" [to her] as a RATHER SMALL PROPORTION of the whole?=A0 Reed says: So you conclude in various ways above that her share in adding information was minimal. But if you are going to use this passage of HPB's as your proof text then we need to observe that you have omitted her OWN statement in THAT context where it contradicts YOUR presentation. HPB says: "These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, now made public for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this work is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes embodying the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been TAUGHT BY MORE ADVANCED STUDENTS, SUPPLEMENTED IN A FEW DETAILS ONLY, BY THE RESULTS OF HER OWN STUDY AND OBSERVATIONS." Reed: But that last sentence gives her view: "supplemented in a FEW DETAILS ONLY, by the results of her own study and observation."=A0 This directly= contradicts how you just described her contribution.=A0 You omitted these following= words of hers and they directly contradict how you had just positioned her.=A0= Shame on you Paul for quoting out of context. Reed Carson From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 17:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:16:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Reed joins the attack Message-Id: <199808132216.SAA02360@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808132104.QAA23076@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 13, 98 04:04:19 pm We start out with this post from me: > Daniel, > > You ask why I LEAVE OUT [sic] the next statement from HPB that you > quote. It's because the question dealt with by Dallas and Kym > was *simply* whether HPB was the first and sole source of these > teachings, or whether they were previously available. I stopped > quoting when I got HPB's own answer to that question. which answers Daniel's question-- which was really no question at all but a typically prosecutorial demand for defense against an implicit accusation. Then I add: Where > she got the small proportion of her SD that isn't found > "scattered" in thousands of other texts is irrelevant to the > question under discussion. If she derived *some* teachings from more advanced > students, what relevance does this have to the question of > whether she then blended together a wide variety of different > teachings from different "advanced students" past and present, many of which > were in writing-- which is what she seems to be saying? None of this, as best I can tell, is under discussion with Reed's current attack. And by the way, don't > "scientific or other works" include every single work ever published? And > unpublished? Thus perhaps leaving the part "given or suggested" as a > rather small proportion of the whole? The SD has after all a huge number of > citations. But here Reed accuses me of deliberate fraud by not quoting, or being influenced by, HPB's claim that "...this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and observation." Now we are several posts down the line from the original controversy, and I was not in the above passage commenting on HPB's claims but rather the description in the Mahatma letter cited by Daniel. THAT's where the "given or suggested" phrase comes from. But since Reed brings up the HPB passage which would seem to contradict my reading of the Mahatma letter, let me say flatly that what she means by "a few details" must be a most unusual interpretation of that phrase. Anyone can look at the SD and see just how much of it is based on written texts. Seems to me that Reed's argument on this is with obvious facts, not with my failure to notice that HPB makes a claim that is clearly in conflict with the facts apparent in the book she is introducing. And I did indeed *fail to notice* it, not deliberately ignore it. The original point, which Daniel and Reed seem to wish to obscure by making personal attacks on me is well summarized by this exchange between Dallas and Bjorn. > > > > > > Without HPB's writings (accredited several times by the Masters) we would > > have no Theosophy. > > If you read Key to Theosophy you will see that HPB very clearly contradicts this > statement of yours, repeatedly. Reed writes, quoting me but adding the capital letters typical of Theosophical fundamentalist discourse: > =A0Where she got the SMALL PROPORTION of her SD that isn't found > "scattered" in thousands of other texts is irrelevant to the question under > discussion.=A0 If she derived *SOME* teachings from more advanced > students, what relevance does this have to the question of whether she then > blended together a wide variety of different teachings from different > "advanced students" past and present, many of which were in writing-- which > is what she seems to be saying? > =A0...=A0 Thus perhaps leaving the part "given or suggested" [to her] as a > RATHER SMALL PROPORTION of the whole?=A0 > > Reed says: > So you conclude in various ways above that her share in adding information > was minimal. No, that's not at all what I conclude. It's not *her* share that I was concluding was minimal. Rather, the share described in the Mahatma letter as coming from *them* which was-- everything not annotated from scientific or other texts. Any reader can see for him or herself what a large portion of the SD falls in the category "annotated from scientific and other texts." >But if you are going to use this passage of HPB's as your proof text Big if. I was in no way using HPB's passage as a "proof text," nor the Mahatma letter. Simply speculating on their meaning in light of the clear fact that in the SD there are thousands of citations to books read by HPB. The whole business of using these writings as proof texts in doctrinal wars, just described so well by Kym, is the Theosophical fundamentalist game. Was just trying to undermine it by giving an alternative reading. then we need to observe that you have omitted her OWN statement in THAT > context where it contradicts YOUR presentation. Omitted is not quite the right word. I did not discuss it, was not thinking of it. Yes, it contradicts what I conclude. But it also contradicts obvious facts. However, to omit something implies that one decides to do so after having contemplated it. I did not. > > Reed: > But that last sentence gives her view: "supplemented in a FEW DETAILS ONLY, > by the results of her own study and observation."=A0 This directly= > contradicts > how you just described her contribution. So? =A0 You omitted these following= > words > of hers and they directly contradict how you had just positioned her.=A0= > Shame > on you Paul for quoting out of context. Shame and blame are precisely what Theosophical fundamentalists have been pouring on my head for years now, so I guess there's no reason for me to expect any different from you. Instead of all this runaround and diversionary attacks on me, why don't you and Daniel respond directly to the issue on the table, the debate between Dallas and Kym? You all are so keen on making *me personally* the issue all the time. To most folks on this list, as best I can tell, it's apparent that this is a sign of intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy. Unable to make cogent arguments *for* your own point of view (or for some reason disinclined to do so), you instead drag the list through the mud of your hostility for one person who seems to symbolize something you deeply hate and fear. Why not get over all this personal attack stuff and focus on the issues? You guys weaken your position every time you jump on someone like this. PJ From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 17:37:52 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:31:20 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Sex, contraception .... Message-Id: <199808132231.XAA13376@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> A Theosophical View: "So does each man create for himself in verity the form wherein he functions, and what he is in his present is the inevitable outcome of his own creative energies in his past. Applying this to the Neo-Malthusian theory, we see in sexual love not only a passion which man has in common with the brute, and which forms, at the present stage of evolution, a necessary part of human nature, but an animal passion that may be trained and purified into a human emotion, which may be used as one of the levers in human progress, one of the factors in human growth. But, instead of this, man in the past has made his intellect the servant of his passions; the abnormal development of the sexual instinct in man - in whom it is far greater and more continuous than in any brute - is due to the mingling with it of the intellectual element, all sexual thoughts, desires, and imaginations having created thought-forms, which have been wrought into the human race, giving rise to a continual demand, far beyond nature, and in marked contrast with the temperance of normal animal life. Hence it has become one of the most fruitful sources of human misery and human degredation, and the satisfaction of its imperious cravings in civilised countries lies at the root of our worst social evils. This excessive development has to be fought against, and the instinct reduced within natural limits, and this will certainly never be done by easy-going self-indulgence within the marital relation any more than by self-indulgence outside it. By none other road than that of self-control and self-denial can men and women now set going the causes which will build for them brains and bodies of a higher type for their future return to earth-life. They have to hold this instinct in complete control, to transmute it from passion into tender and self-denying affection, to develop the intellectual at the expense of the animal, and thus to raise the whole man to the humanstage, in which every intellectual and physical capacity shall subserve the purposes of the soul. From all this it follows Theosophists should sound the note of self-restraint within marriage, and the gradual - for with the mass it cannot be sudden - restriction of the sexual relation to the perpetuation of the race. "Such was the bearing of Theosophical teaching on Neo-Malthusianism, as laid before me by H.P. Blavatsky, and when I urged, out of my bitter knowledge of the miseries endured by the poor, that it surely might, for a time at least, be recommended as a palliative, as a defence in the hands of a woman against intolerable opression and enforced suffering, she bade me look beyond the moment, and see how the suffering must come back and back with every generation, unless we sought to remove the roots of wrong. "I do not judge a woman," she said, "who has resort to such means of defence in the midst of circumstances so evil, and whose ignorance of the real causes of all this misery is her excuse for snatching at any relief. But it is not for you, an Occultist, to continue to teach a method which you know must tend to the perpetuation of the sorrow." I felt that she was right, and though I shrank from the decision - my heart somewhat failed me at withdrawing from the knowledge of the poor, so far as I could, a temporary palliative of evils which too often wreck their lives and bring many to an early grave, worn old before even middle age has touched them - yet the decision was made. I refused to reprint the "Law of Population," or to sell the copyright, giving pain, as I sadly knew, to all the brave and loyal friends who had so generously stood by me in that long and bitter struggle, and who saw the results of victory thrown away on grounds to them inadequate and mistaken. Will it alwayas be, I wonder, in man's climbing upward, that every step must be set on his own heart and on the hearts of those he loves?" (Annie Besant, an autobiography, 1st ed, 1893, this ed. 1917) Tony From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 18:22:53 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:20:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Empty knowledge Message-Id: <199808132320.TAA09457@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Thanks, Brant, for sharing your thoughts and feelings about "book learning" and coming up against its limitations. There is so much literature that claims to *describe* reality for us, but I don't think contemporary seekers are much attracted to that sort of thing. Which represents a challenge for the Theosophical movement that it doesn't seem to be meeting very well. Instead, people want *useful* knowledge, tools to transform their lives, knowing *how* rather than knowing *that*. Which in Blavatskian terms has to do with the heart doctrine vs. the eye doctrine. Cayce says that "knowledge not applied is sin." That's pretty extreme and requires some qualifications; it's not a sin to not apply knowledge of how to do harmful things. But if he means spiritual knowledge, the karmic responsibility for those who know what they should do and ignore it would indeed seem greater than for those who are ignorant. He also said to "keep ever constructive" which suggests that the priority is on gaining knowledge that can be useful in some way. The sense of emptiness one feels after devoting years to reading metaphysical and occult books is a good and necessary thing, I believe. Personally, I relate it to the Jungian idea of transcendence, and figure you're in the same developmental cycle (that is, middle age.) Jung says that one's dominant and secondary functions are the main focus for the first forty years of life, but thereafter we need to catch up on the inferior and tertiary functions. I, like many Theosophists, am an intuitive type with secondary thinking. Was quite disconnected from the realms of sensation and feeling in my young adulthood. "Following your bliss" to me meant burying myself in books. But after 40, it really did all change, and I got much more attuned to relationships and nature. Feeling the emptiness of all that intuitive thinking stuff is a crucial part of the process of unfolding the hitherto neglected feeling and sensation elements. If you don't shift focus in your 40s (whichever way is indicated by your type) it's a sign of failing to deal with the evolutionary imperative toward becoming whole. Namaste, Paul From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 18:37:52 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:34:22 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-13 15:25:55 EDT, you write: > But when one is ready it is essential. Again, there is no reliable evidence for that. It may work in cultures where celibacy is honored and thus there is a working thoughtform that supports it, but when that is lacking, the results will always be disasterous. The problem I have here (aside from my obvious cultural bias coming out of a highly sexually active occult environment) is the assertion that something is necessary when there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to back it up. Chuck From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 18:45:48 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:39:06 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <4a6d4d82.35d3791c@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-13 18:43:22 EDT, you write: > This excessive >development has to be fought against, and the instinct reduced within >natural limits, and this will certainly never be done by easy-going >self-indulgence within the marital relation any more than by self-indulgence >outside it. By none other road than that of self-control and self-denial >can men and women now set going the causes which will build for them brains >and bodies of a higher type for their future return to earth-life. And here we have proof that even our beloved HPB was capable of spouting flapdoodle. So much for argument by authority. Chuck From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 18:53:02 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:28:00 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-Id: <199808132328.AA29938@lafn.org> >A Theosophical View: > >"So does each man create for himself in verity the form wherein he >functions, and what he is in his present is the inevitable outcome of his >own creative energies in his past. Applying this to the Neo-Malthusian >theory, we see in sexual love not only a passion which man has in common >with the brute, and which forms, at the present stage of evolution, a >necessary part of human nature, but an animal passion that may be trained >and purified into a human emotion, which may be used as one of the levers in >human progress, one of the factors in human growth. But, instead of this, >man in the past has made his intellect the servant of his passions; the >abnormal development of the sexual instinct in man - in whom it is far >greater and more continuous than in any brute - is due to the mingling with >it of the intellectual element, all sexual thoughts, desires, and >imaginations having created thought-forms, which have been wrought into the >human race, giving rise to a continual demand, far beyond nature, and in >marked contrast with the temperance of normal animal life. Hence it has >become one of the most fruitful sources of human misery and human >degredation, and the satisfaction of its imperious cravings in civilised >countries lies at the root of our worst social evils. This excessive >development has to be fought against, and the instinct reduced within >natural limits, and this will certainly never be done by easy-going >self-indulgence within the marital relation any more than by self-indulgence >outside it. By none other road than that of self-control and self-denial >can men and women now set going the causes which will build for them brains >and bodies of a higher type for their future return to earth-life. They >have to hold this instinct in complete control, to transmute it from passion >into tender and self-denying affection, to develop the intellectual at the >expense of the animal, and thus to raise the whole man to the humanstage, in >which every intellectual and physical capacity shall subserve the purposes >of the soul. From all this it follows Theosophists should sound the note of >self-restraint within marriage, and the gradual - for with the mass it >cannot be sudden - restriction of the sexual relation to the perpetuation of >the race. > > "Such was the bearing of Theosophical teaching on Neo-Malthusianism, >as laid before me by H.P. Blavatsky... Tony, An excellent passage. Not having the book, is Besant quoting an HPB letter or just relying on memory of a conversation with HPB? Also, you probably know, near the end of MAHATMA LETTER 86, KH writes of the "brutal aura" of this pamphlet on birth-control by Besant & Bradlaugh. Of course critics on auto-pilot will utter "mere Victorian morality". But the reasons given by HPB are based in traditional occultism, not any era's ethical fashions. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 19:22:35 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:12:02 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-Id: <199808140012.AA09872@lafn.org> Chuck: >Again, there is no reliable evidence for that. It may work in cultures where >celibacy is honored and thus there is a working thoughtform that supports it, >but when that is lacking, the results will always be disasterous. I did not mention Christianity, our nominal cultural root. But celibacy is certainly honored here too. Not as much as it used to be, but that is another topic. Brother Giles, disciple of St. Francis praised it. (Quote available upon request) What would you accept as "reliable evidence"? -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 19:51:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:48:35 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Teachers Message-ID: <002e01bdc71d$45b65c40$217d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >All the chakras must be opened in unison eventually. Has anyone tried >rasing kundalini?? > >MD Yes. I did it over many years, slowly and without force (which just gave me headaches anyway). I am still waiting for all those "siddhas" I keep reading about. The promise of psychic powers is grossly overrated, IMHO. Today I am interested in chakra opening from a psychological viewpoint. This aspect is big right now in transpersonal psychology (which I got my second Ph.D. in, BTW). The idea of a chakra stimulation being equated to psychological development seems more practical to me than the promise of powers, which I have seen only in very small amounts anyway. Jerry S. From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 20:01:19 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:40:25 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: A Moral Law? Message-ID: <002301bdc71c$215b86a0$217d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Daniel Caldwell queries: > >And what does all of what you write above really mean? >Could we have some concrete examples? > It means exactly what Lao Tzu wrote many years ago to the effect that there is no good without evil, and no evil without good. It also means what Shakespear wrote to the effect that good and evil are within, not without. >(1) If Albert goes around for 30 years raping women >and never gets caught, once he's dead. . . . he's home free? > What does "home free" mean? There is karma, after all. But karma cares not a wit about good and evil. >(2) If I was a Gestapo officer who enjoyed bashing >babys' heads against train cars, and I didn't get >caught by the Allies or the Jewish Nazi hunters, >once I'm dead. . . I'm home free? > I have no idea what you mean by "home free." If a person has no conscience (conduct disorder ala the DSM IV) then they are "home free" yes. It is the conscience that gives us a sense of good and evil, sometimes rightly and sometimes quite wrongly. >(3) If Joe is a lustful guy, who has sex with hundreds >of guys, gets AIDS and then *purposely* infects scores >of other guys with HIV, once he's dead. . . he's home free? > >These are just a few examples from real life. . . . > Karma is a balancing act. Too much sex has its repercussions. Too much of anything does. Harming others brings harm to oneself and so on. Good and evil are purely human value judgements that we tack onto events wrap us around needless axels. >Are there any "laws" inherent in the fabric of "Nature" which >relate to such vile human behavior? > The "vileness" of any act lies only in the viewpoint of an observer. A person with conduct disorder may kill another person without any regret soever. Hitler and his SS, for example, considered their acts to be fully justified. But acts of violence brings about violence just as acts of love bring about love. This is karma, and it has nothing at all to do with vileness or holiness. >Do such actions, etc. have any effect on the future of these >three human beings once they have left the physical plane? >(Assuming you believe in life after death, reincarnation, >progression to higher planes, etc.) > I do so believe, and yes it does, of course. But karma acts like a magnet in the sense that as we sow so shall we reap, and as we tend to think about others so others tend to do unto us. The vileness of any act of violence exists in our minds, just as the holiness of an act is in our minds. I believe that karma is an uncaring impersonal Law (Crowley had it right when he taught that Love is the Law because if we have love everything else will follow in due course). Jerry S. From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 20:06:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:51:01 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003301bdc71d$9c9918e0$217d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Quick Sanity Questionnaire: > >1) I hear strange voices in my head am I - >a) in the astral planes listening to the masters >b) insane >c) subject of a CIA/Alien mind projection experiment > Could be all of the above!! >2) Whilst meditating my consciousneess seems to change vibration am I - >a) experiencing a 'finer' level of reality - one that the 'doors of >perception' are normally closed to >b) channeling the vibration of a higher being >c) deluding myself > > The differences here form a very thin line. >All I experience is but a projection of my own mind inside the astral >planes, the sooner you learn this you sooner you will stop deluding >yourself. MAYA MAYA MAYA MAYA MAYA MAYA > >Master D >(descended - there's not much to do up there) > Agreed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 20:16:50 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:57:09 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-ID: <003801bdc71e$7866ef00$217d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >NOS replies: >I sid ONE TRUE INITIATION. There are many 'spiritual experiences' which the >naive think are initiations - and yes one need not die to have a spiritual >experience - but what of it? > Guess I'm pretty naive then. >Unless you have died and I don't mean an NDE which is just another form of >hallucination (albeit very inisghtful into the true nature of reality) and >STOPPED COMPLETELY (laya state) - that is - all forms of change through >thought - you will still be embedded in MAYA. All thoughtis Mayavic, all >concepts are mayavic. > Guess what. Even after death we are still in Maya. Thoughts are alive and well on the mental plane, which is where Devachan lies. >For those interested in performing self-initiations I suggest reading the >Rg Veda very thoroughly first and to understand what is meant by Vriti in >Chetna (forgive my spelling if slightly out I have 3 books with different >nomenclature). Then acquire some true SOMA. Do not attempt it by yourself >though. > Self-initiations do not require a Rg Veda or any other book. I have had many myself, but then I am very naive so they probably don't count for much. >But ask yourself, once I know everything and Understand completely (gnosis) >what do I wnat then? > Then you will want to share it with others. Jerry S. From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 20:36:31 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:09:38 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Zen Advice Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980814110938.00761c5c@ozemail.com.au> The Gift of Insults ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- There once lived a great warrior. Though quite old, he still was able to defeat any challenger. His reputation extended far and wide throughout the land and many students gathered to study under him. One day an infamous young warrior arrived at the village. He was determined to be the first man to defeat the great master. Along with his strength, he had an uncanny ability to spot and exploit any weakness in an opponent. He would wait for his opponent to make the first move, thus revealing a weakness, and then would strike with merciless force and lightning speed. No one had ever lasted with him in a match beyond the first move. Much against the advice of his concerned students, the old master gladly accepted the young warrior's challenge. As the two squared off for battle, the young warrior began to hurl insults at the old master. He threw dirt and spit in his face. For hours he verbally assaulted him with every curse and insult known to mankind. But the old warrior merely stood there motionless and calm. Finally, the young warrior exhausted himself. Knowing he was defeated, he left feeling shamed. Somewhat disappointed that he did not fight the insolent youth, the students gathered around the old master and questioned him. "How could you endure such an indignity? How did you drive him away?" "If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it," the master replied, "to whom does the gift belong?" http://www1.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/zenstory.html From ???@??? Thu Aug 13 21:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:14:00 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #364 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980813201400.007a0900@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808130444.XAA27855@proteus.imagiware.com> Chuck wrote regarding Daniel's examples of 'immoral' behavior: >There is no, reliable, empirical evidence that behavior in this life has any >negative impact on future lives. On the contrary, it is possible to posit a >system where such behavior would be rewarded with benefits in a future >incarnation. When you use the terms "such behavior" - it sounds as though you are referring to the examples Daniel offered - that these are actions that could be "rewarded" due to their fine use of the intellect. Yet, you go on: >Consider if you will a universal system that values only one thing, >intelligence and has no sentiment whatsoever (all the mentioned cases are >based on sentiment). Here you seem to be saying that the above cases are "sentiment" and not "intelligence." Which is are they? >It does not matter how the human intelligence is used >(individual lifetimes are so brief and transitory in the universal schema as >to be meaningless anyway), all that matters is that it is used the more >efficiently it is used (efficiency being the amount of work the brain can do >with the least electrical activity in the brain), the happier the universe is >and reacts to the soul accordingly. The "happier the universe is?" How can a universe be "happier" (is that not a sentiment, and if the universe doesn't value sentiment, why would a universe express happiness (sentiment) or even value or prefer its own happiness)? And, your philosophy appears to suggest that the universe would be far "happier" if only machines existed - fast, efficient, without sentiment. Why, then, would humans have ever even been "thought of" and "manifested?" What's the point of ever having humans exist in such a universe - which serve to pretty much, by your account, merely bum the universe out? >Now, as conscience seems to be a terribly inefficient thing to have (it >requires a lot of excess neuro-electrical activity for no purpose other than >making the person feel bad) it would seem that the less conscience an >individual has, the higher that individual is on the evolutionary scale. Your statement that a conscience does no more than make a "person feel bad" is clearly false. The conscience is the dancing partner of the intellect - neither means much without the other - a classic lack of balance. A combination of intellect and conscience is the creator of the finest things in life. If you throw out sentiment (conscience), you throw out art, philosophy, relationships, theatre, social interaction, psionics, books, sex, laughter, humor, etc. . .all these things are inefficient in some way, but they are the things that make life worth living. "Sentimental twaddle" as good ole' Bazzar would probably term it; but, nonetheless, humans would rather die than live without it. >In such a cosmos (and given the opportunity to write a book-length >dissertation I could probably make a good case that that is precisely the >cosmos we have) any notion of morality is anti-evolutionary and not at all >conducive to anything except to limit the individual and make societies better >able to control folks. Actually, I doubt you could do that (Plato attempted the same in his Republic) especially since pure intellect threatens to do the very same thing you fear sentimentality will do - limit the individual. People are born with differing intellects - those with the most "refined" ones would rule, censor, control, and bind humanity. Again, I fail to see how one can really make a case for ONLY intellect or ONLY sentiment - adoption of either philosophy would result in unspeakable horrors. Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 00:21:31 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 01:12:31 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <69aef3ac.35d3c740@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-13 20:27:37 EDT, you write: >What would you accept as "reliable evidence"? I would accept a case study where it could be proven that celibacy does have results that non-celibats cannot acheive. The fact that there is no celibate in the christian tradition that has done anything not duplicated by non- celibates pretty much leaves that one out. (Protestants can match anything the Roman Catholics have done and they do not honor celibacy in any way. It is, in fact, looked upon as a spiritual perversion). All I am hearing is blind assertions and argument by authority, neither of which constitute reliable proof. Chuck From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 00:31:15 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 01:21:08 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: #364 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-13 22:27:22 EDT, you write: >Your statement that a conscience does no more than make a "person feel bad" >is clearly false. Wrong. Conscience is something created by social conditioning for the purpose of making the individual fit in with their society. Other than that it serves no purpose whatsoever. As to the role of it in other aspects of life, I might point out the example of a man who had no conscience about killing whatsoever and yet was a very talented artist, a brilliant writer and attained enlightenment in a single lifetime, the Japanese Sword Saint Musashi who killed at least 60 men in single combat and wrote one of the best tactical manuals around. The idea that the universe is responsive to any human value system is an absurdity and any idea that it would actually care about individual human behavior is laughable. Chuck From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 01:21:31 1998 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:23:03 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <35D3D7C7.3746@azstarnet.com> References: <69aef3ac.35d3c740@aol.com> Nicholas asked: > >What would you accept as "reliable evidence"? ----------------------------------------------------- Chuck answered: > I would accept a case study where it could be proven that celibacy does have > results that non-celibats cannot acheive. The fact that there is no celibate > in the christian tradition that has done anything not duplicated by non- > celibates pretty much leaves that one out. (Protestants can match anything the > Roman Catholics have done and they do not honor celibacy in any way. >It is, in fact, looked upon as a spiritual perversion). > > All I am hearing is blind assertions and argument by authority, neither of which constitute reliable proof. -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Caldwell replies: But as far as I can tell, Chuck, you too are only giving "blind assertions and argument by authority [sounds like YOUR AUTHORITY]." Where is your reliable proof? An example of YOUR "blind assertions and argument by authority" is to be found in your very next post which I repeat below: >Wrong. Conscience is something created by social conditioning for the >purpose of making the individual fit in with their society. Other than >that it serves no purpose whatsoever. >As to the role of it in other aspects of life, I might point out the >example of a man who had no conscience about killing whatsoever and yet >was a very talented artist, a brilliant writer and attained >enlightenment in a single lifetime, the Japanese Sword Saint Musashi >who killed at least 60 men in single combat and wrote one of the best >tactical manuals around. >The idea that the universe is responsive to any human value system is >an absurdity and any idea that it would actually care about individual >human behavior is laughable. Chuck, as far as I can see, you have not given any evidence (reliable or unreliable) to back up any of these statements. Your statements look like mere ASSERTIONS to me. Maybe you have good reasons, good evidence for the above assertions but you haven't produced them here on theos-talk. Where's the beef? Concerning Japanese Sword Saint Musashi, how do you know that he actually attained "enlightenment"? What kind of "enlightenment" are you talking about? Etc. Etc. Didn't Saint Elizabeth Claire Prophet also attain "enlightenment" in one of her former lives? : ) Please give us some reliable evidence for your assertions. If not, you're in the same boat as the one you claim Nicholas and company are in. Also your description of the "case study" is downright vague. Could you please define in some detail what you mean by "results"? DETAILS ARE ESSENTIAL and you don't give any. Cheers. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 09:51:32 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 06:47:37 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <005001bdc792$1bce4ee0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 14th Chuck: And who finally gets to "pay" for what you might call "fun ?" Is suffering to others the only joy that anyone should look forward to ? Does such a motive not hurt us too ? Or have we developed calluses that ? Dal > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 4:54 PM > From: "Chuck Cosimano" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >In a message dated 98-08-12 17:26:56 EDT, you write: > >> Democracy and anarchy are not the same thing. >> >> Bart Lidofsky > >True. Anarchy is much more fun and I do one hell of a warlord. > >Chuck > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 10:07:46 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 07:44:16 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: A "Master" on theos-talk?? Message-ID: <005301bdc792$1fee3760$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 14th 1998 Dear Kym: All your questions about deserving or non-deserving can only be answered interiorly, if you question your own motives, knowledge and purpose for such a contact. What I tried to convey is that we are already, each of us, interiorly possessive of planes of contact that correspond to those on which Masters Advanced Human Beings ) dwell. If you consult THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY you will find more answers there. If we or They make contact we will know it without doubt. Do not mistake me, please, there is ignorance of fact and there is deliberate ignorance, the unwillingness to learn or to seek and search and know. Each one determines for themselves what category they belong in. Personally I am well aware of my limitations and how to surmount them (given time). Others have to determine such things each for themselves. Everything that we say, think, do or feel is open to an Individual who qualifies as a Mahatma ( a Great Soul) or, a "Master." If one has developed "spiritual" perceptions those are transferred from the personality inward and then we may know of the nature and abilities of the "Master within." No claims or pretensions avail, nor does curiosity. Again make no mistake. I claim nothing personally for myself except the ability to seek and to study and ask myself (and others) perplexing questions which tend, I hope, to give us all extra understanding.. If a person has reason to contact another then that is done. So with spiritual things, if there is a reason, contact is made. What else can be said ? If you read and study the KEY TO THEOSOPHY these questions you ask are answered there, and they do not require my supplementing them. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 10:27 PM > From: "Kym Smith" > Subject: A "Master" on theos-talk?? >Dallas wrote: > >>I am of the opinion that some moderation in language is more indicative of >>sagacity than the use of expletives, barnyard terms, etc, which only denote >>to me a lack of that kind of understanding that leads to true discussion. > >Where in my post to you were there "expletives, barnyard terms, etc.?" >Where, Dallas? > >>I hope you will excuse my bluntness. > >Am I to excuse your bluntness as self-expression while you consider my >bluntness a lack of utilizing proper reading material (which, in real >terminology means "ignorance")? > >Well, I know that the spiritual answer is: Yes - but it is very hard to do. > >>Can you succinctly say what it is you want to learn ? > >I already have - but let me go further and ask you something directly. I >want to learn why you imply that those who seek a visit from the "Masters" >is merely no more than a matter of them being non-deserving? How do you >know they are non-deserving? Is there something in their manner or >writings that tell you so? How do you know what is in their hearts and >souls? > >How do you know what is in the hearts and souls of the "Masters" - which >means, how do you know that those who seek the "Masters" have not already >lain eyes upon them? How do you know that they, or you, did not pass this >very day, a "Master?" How do you know that a "Master" did not, this very >day, pass a person on this list (even an "ignorant" one) and slightly nod >their head to the person as a sign of recognition and love and >encouragement? How do you know what type of person a "Master" wants to visit? > >Let's take a really big brain sojourn: How do you know, Dallas, that I >(gasp and faint!) am not a "Master?" Are you so sure that a "Master" will >be in the manner and form you think they will be? Maybe a "Master" will >come as a CHALLENGER of those who follow HPB as a test to see just what >they have learned - to see how they treat those they perceive as "ignorant" >- to see how much Compassion followers of HPB manifest in those they may >differ with - to see how much the advocates of HPB use love to spread >Theosophy - to see how they respond to people who are angry, hurt, and lost >- to see how they respond to people who have had different life experiences >and do not write, talk, or look at life the same way. How do you know, >Dallas? How do you know you're not talking to a "Master" now? > >You claim that you are "humble" and at times could be "wrong." Yet, you >are quick to peg those who question HPB's writings as "ignorant." So, >obviously, you feel and think you know enough to recognize when someone is >misinterpreting HPB, which further suggests that you are some kind of >"expert." Ok, so be it - but with that "expertise" comes >extra-responsibility. > >So, keeping that in mind (your extra-responsibility), and reflecting on how >you address me and others who disagree or argue with you, do you believe, >in your heart, that a "Master" would be pleased to read your posts? > >That is what I wish to learn, Dallas. > > >Kym > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 10:18:34 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 07:23:13 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Celibacy is just the beginning Message-ID: <005101bdc792$1cf346e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 14th 1998 Dallas offers: On the subject of sex. What is the main REASON for intercourse ? Is it to have children and take on the responsibilities of family life and raising decent children or is it not ? If it is pursued purely because of some pleasure -- then does that justify promiscuity? And from that prostitution ? What is our attitude towards motherhood, sisterhood, one's wife or daughter (or reversibly, one's father, brother, son, other men ?). Apparently some degradation of the kamic principle has cast the protective instinct into the discard and glorified sexual appetites -- which historically and traditionally have been always regarded as very sacred matters, not to be placed on display and thus made a plaything of. Only the most vile of humans who have descended to the level of the sub-bestial, have ever made of sex a matter of usage and display -- and yet, here we now live in an age of permissiveness, and one's "rights" are thrown against the old customs and views of the past ? Are we any the better or safer or happier for this condition ? One of the signs of the sad condition of our times is the fact that so-called psychologists have made it their work to find excuses and persuasive reasons why sex-life (and its many kinds of perversions) ought to be advertised. If the continuing individuality and karma are not to be considered, are we to do worse than the animals do, who have their natural seasons for conception and exercise usually the greatest protective care over their little ones ? Why do honorable and responsible people feel a disgust for such a condition ? Is it not the violation of one of the fundamental objects of the Theosophical Movement -- the T S and of all Nature ? I man of BROTHERHOOD, and of that universal compassion and protection that the strong are expected to extend to the weak ? Where is true chivalry, one might ask. Does it no longer well up spontaneously from deep within? Why is there in the world today such a concentrated effort to make our children in their inexperience aware of sexuality without the responsibilities that are a concomitant of exercising it ? I would say that it is very fortunate to be brought up in an environment where historically and customarily respect for privacy, for women-folk is still exercised. But, of course if this is exaggerated and carried to an extreme there is also in those customs and their imposition an infringement on free will and the right of self-education and self-decision. All these things need consideration and adjustment on the basis of that which is reasonable. The Soul is neither male nor female. Only the body of the present incarnation is provided under karma in one sex or the other for the purpose of meeting and adjusting our past karma -- says Theosophy. As students of Theosophy have we considered Karmatically what promiscuity implies -- in terms of liaisons that may last for many lives -- in terms of children who are not PROTECTED by their fathers or mothers and are the real orphans, the changelings, of the world ? This may appear a strange question. But Theosophy presents us with a view of karmic operations not provided in or by any other source. It is one of real importance for us at this stage of our joint evolution. If it is said that occultism prohibits connubial life, one should ask why. What is the pursuit of occultism as a motive ? Can one devote the same amount of importance to occult development (whatever that may mean) if one is married, or not ? Is it possibly a case of divided loyalties, in the sense that the very careful work of developing one's occult nature (again, I say what is that ?) and of executing all the responsibilities of family life demand too much time in and of themselves ? Now comes a clincher for me: Would it me possible for one to be both an occultist and a family person simultaneously ? Ancient Indian history records the case of King Janaka who did this. Krishna in the GITA uses him as an example. King Vikramaditya was another. Krishna himself as myths surrounding him show had this capability. If interiorly, in the recesses of our own True Nature we are ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS or the imperishable IMMORTAL True Man/Woman -- then is not the practice of occultism and of family life simultaneous ? Apart from the quotations from the SECRET DOCTRINE offered, there are also those which re given on pages: SD I 223-229 to be considered. Best wishes to all, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 5:24 PM > From: "Murray Stentiford" > Subject: Celibacy is just the beginning >Responding to Paul (Bazzer) > >>Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. >> >>See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: >> [snip] During human >>life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and >>especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our >>physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by >>interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is >>useless to give any longer explanation". > > >I get it. If we stop using all our senses, we'll have the least impediment >to the way of spiritual development. The organs of smell, hearing and sight >are virtually extensions of the brain, and that of touch covers our whole body. > >Where's the nearest sensory deprivation tank? > >Murray > >PS: Is this one of those blinds we're told about? If we scratch below the >surface, what's *really* going on here? Saying it's useless to give any >longer explanation is probably just a factual statement that a deeper >explanation would be almost guaranteed to be misunderstood by the public. >They just wouldn't have the background or insight to see the real picture. > >We are 110-odd years down the track, and this is a kind of public forum .... >I wonder if we're still in that bracket? :-) It'll be touch and go. Maybe >what we really need to abstain from is making definitive statements based on >a few things we've read until we're qualified by a bit more first-hand >perception. > > > >[Quoting Paul more completely] > >>Celibacy is an absolute RULE as regards *practical* Occultism. >> >>See, for example, "The Secret Doctrine", Vol II, 295/296. Extract: >> >>"The question is often asked, "Why should celibacy and chastity be a *sine >>qua non* rule and condition of regular *chelaship*, or the development of >>psychic and occult powers? The answer is contained in the Commentary. When >>we learn that the "third eye" was once a physiological organ, and later on, >>owing to the gradual disappearance of spirituality and increase of >>materiality (Spiritual nature being extinguished by the physical), it became >>an atrophied organ, as little understood now by physiologists as the >>spleen - when we learn this, the connection will become clear. During human >>life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and >>especially to the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our >>physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by >>interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is >>useless to give any longer explanation". > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 10:21:31 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 06:44:14 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <004f01bdc792$19413b60$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 14th 1998 Dear Jerry: To comment on your comments, allow me to add some notes below yours. Thanks, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 12:04 PM > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >> Why should any of the Adepts have to manifest to anyone ? > >They don't. It is we who need to manifest to them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- DALLAS: According to what I understand, the "Masters" (or Mahatmas) exist permenently on the "inner planes" of the whole Universe, namely the three transcendent planes delineated in SD I 200. In Man's 7-fold nature they correspond to ATMA, BUDDI, MANAS. In the SD HPB states several times that these are immortal principles, and they constitue the Real Man. Here, on Earth, our personalities are reflections, obscure, blurred, uncertain as far as our present consciousness when we are awake, is concerned. You and othes may say I am in error in this, but if we think carefully about the Theosophical statements that relate to Consciousness this may become apparent. We are therefore "transparent" to the perception of an Adept (Mahatma) who would only "contact" us as personalities if we had some value in our work, for humanity. This to me is made quite plain in the case of Sinnett (as an example) and can be readily seen if we read MAHATMA LETTERS and LETTERS FROM HPB TO AP SINNETT. To our selves, our pesonality. and all its memories and doings and motives (as an embodied mind that uses a physical and an astral brain) IN THIS LIFE are important. But, as I understnd it, it is only when we make a strong effort to raise ourselves as thought-men out of the personality and its comfortable limitations. that we are able by strong effort attain to some of the perceptions of the REal Man -- the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS. For this reason Theosophy says (as I understand it) that we are "IMMORTALS" -- in that root essence, from which our present "Personality" derives its being. We all know that one thing is certain: this Personality will presently "die" and be disssolved. Into what ? What happens ? Religions try to grapple with this, and if one studies many of those one encounters at their core the same set of root or core ideas. In order to be brief, let me say that the tenets of Theosophy apply there, and can be seen to lie at those several roots and cores. Hence HPB states that Theosophy s the Root and substratum of all the many World Religions. But I further add, and in defence of HPB and Theosophy, WE CAN ONLY ASSURE OURSELVES OF THIS IF WE STUDY WHAT HPB WRITES. We may have many ideas, and we may have "made contact" earler that our contact with "Theosophy" as HPB recorded it with some or all of these ideas. That does not obviate the fact that Theosophy draws all together and can be used to shortcut much of the tedium of research. ========================================= >>Suppose that the Adepts have already contacted us, would we be aware of it >? > >Oh, they have. Apparently not. THIS IS NOT CLEAR. MEANS WHAT ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >>Ever since HPB made the presence and actuality of the Adepts known [ ISIS >II 98-105 ] there have been those who desired to receive actual proofs of >their presence and nature. > >Excuse me Dallas, but I knew of their presence long before I ever heard of >HPB. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas: EXCELLENT. Then you must have no problem in checking out the value of what They and HPB have written. I am considering to be valid the certificate of co-authorship of the SECRET DOCTRINE that they gave to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden, and which is printed on page 1, of THE PATH, vol. 8 by its editor Mr. Wm. Q. Judge. ============================================ >> >>If we have not studied HPB's Theosophy, if we have liked what Annie Besant >>and Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa and others have written, [among those who >>claim "successorship" to HPB ] and called Theosophy, in preference to HPB >we are in a situation of a very unstable nature. ------------------------------------------------------- > >I am sorry that you feel this way. It is just this kind of attitude that has >resulted in a fragmented TS. > DALLAS: Naturally, for myself, and historically, I do not agree. Those who chose to "follow" A. Besant, etc... are where they are because of that. As I see it, it is a repugnance to study that Theosophy that HPB offered. By some method her work has been made into a deterrent to them -- it may be that it does not please them to adopt the conclusions she offers -- is so, why ? Each has to answer this to themselves. Now this cannot be changed by anything I may say. It is only by testing the "pudding" that its taste and worth may be learned. Each one does this. Hence, I continue to say that if HPB is NOT STUDIED, a real knowledge of what THEOSOPHY teaches can only be acquired with great difficulty. It is all out there as history and fragmented records from antiquity. But to re-collect all that one would have to do again what HPB and the Adepts did in writing ISIS UNVEILED, or something of that nature. Tha is how I would express it. I also agree that everyone has to decide what they will do. I can only observe that it is a great pity that material has been promulgated other than HPB's and Masters' Theosophy using that name. That, to me is the root of the various divisions (as to form only) which we are currently confronted with. In terms of ideas there are no barriers. The name or frame we may adopt to label oursleves with has realy no permenent or real value. It is only that : temporary. It does not matter if the T S is fragmented or not. The REAL T.S. cannot be fragmented because it does not exist on the physical plane, as many believe. The REAL T S does exist permanently in the mind and the will of the Masters. All physical plane T S es (or ULTs, etc...) are reflections from that Ideal Akasic plane, and since they are reflections. they are more or less blurred by the ideas that their current representatives have formulated here. It is so dangerous to generalize. One tends to forget that the individuality is always free and uses labels and designations often thoughtlessly. If one reviews the documentary History of the modern Theosophical Movement (given, for instance in the book THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- 1875-1950 -- $ 6.00 -- Published by Theosophy Company, 245 W. 33rd St., Los Angeles, Ca., 90007 ) one willl find what the reasons for the various "splits" are. They are all clearly traced. Continued differences of opinion are the natural result of personal preferences. But if anyone desires to find out what THEOSOPHY IS or TEACHES, where else can they go with assurance except to HPB ? Why is that the GITA, the DHAMMAPADA, the TAO-TEH-CHING, the VEDAS, and the UPANISHADS, etc... are explained and correlated in THE SECRET DOCTRINE (the Original Edition if 1888). Those who wrote on Theosophy after HPB's death -- in my esteem have either adhered to the philosophy as she promulgated it, or have diverged. There has been divergence. Stokes in O. E. LIBRARY CRITIC examined these impartially. Margaret Thomas in THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY compares the differences, so that those who desire to find out what they are can read for themselves and form their own opinions. It would be quite wrong in my esteem for me to try to tell anyone how or what they should adopt as ideas or ways of thinking. We all have difficulties deciding what is purely our own independent conclusions, and what are those we have borrowed, adopted, modified or form-fitted into our survey of the world, and how we try to fit into it. That freedom is entirely individual and is universal. To try to get others to agree is futile, for although there may be a lip adherence to forms and rules, the actual practice is always a matter if independent thought and action. I think this is quite clear. Hence, when some differences of view arise, one ought to go to the roots and see what principles are involved. Once we agree on common grounds, there is rarly room for much difference of understanding. Here is where a lot of time is spent. ==================================== > >>We are curious, but we do not KNOW. > >KNOWing or Gnosis comes from direct experience, not from reading >or studying book, not even HPB's books. ========================= DALLAS: TRUE HPBs writing are assists not something to be believed in. If you find me using them it is because I have personally gone (and am continuing) to go through this process of analysis and comparison, and for me, they have so far proved to be the most valuable and comprehensive in their purview. ========================================= > >>If for whatever reason we have rejected HPB > >Why on Earth do you keep insisting that we have "rejected" HPB?? >If I say thanks to CWL for a few of his ideas that have helped me, >that does not imply that I have rejected HPB. I also have been >helped by G de Purucker, James Long and even Judge. As far as >I am aware, I never even once rejected HPB over this. =============================================== You may be quite right in what you say, and I may be quite wrong in so broad a characterization. If I am wrong accept my apology. It seems to me that when you compare HPB and later writers, as I say above they either assist or they do no. In themselves they do not surpass (in my esteem) HPB but also (in my esteem) they do not supplant and alter the prnciples she has offered. It is like saying that a pupil claims he is better than the Master he has learned from, without being able to demonstrate parity orsuperiority to that Master. If that is true it is an example of pride and a claim to authority, that not even the Master has ever made. Are we going to say that the properties of water or of gold are annoying ? But whether they annoy or not, they are still true. Scientists who test Nature for developing what they think are now perceptions are only uncovering that which has always been there. Compare, always compare. > >============================================= >>are we >>of the opinion that HPB is "dead and >>gone ?" It is my conviction that that is the greatest error that we could >>make. We are all her "children," > >Gack!! Even she would gack at this one. How about "students" instead >of children, please. ====================================== Use any word you please, we are all her pupils. I said children, because it would be foolish for me to claim parity with HPBs achievements. And I donot see any of us presently inarated and concerned in the Theosophical Movement, who, byt their own writings show anything like her ability or humility. ========================================= > >>? Are we not HPB's heirs ? Do we not therefore carry some of the >>responsibility for its continuity and retransmission ? >> > >I thought that the TSs were doing pretty much just this. ============================================ Then it would change if it put into application the 3 Objects as originally adopted -- there is all the time in the world for its membes and well-wishers to enforce this. What are we waiting for ? If you and I sense formal limitations, then get out of those bounds and make sure that all true students have some place to gather to study and help each other. The purpose of the TS was just that: mutual study and help. No more. Formal limits do count or constitute the reality, whic lies in the philosophy alone. ======================================== > >>Does not Theosophy, when grasped, eliminate dogmatism, priestcraft, >>authoritative interpretations, and place us firmly on our own thinking >>"feet," and make us see that we are responsible for our natures and for our >>own Karma. > >I only wish that this were true. But dogmatism seems to be alive and well. >You yourself say that HPB is the only real authority to study, thus >"authoritative interpretations" are right in your own words, my friend. I don't know a >single Theosophist would thinks that their karma is someone else's responsibility. >Do you? >========================================== DALLAS: I said: "for me," and, as above, if judged a modification of my position, HPB is the best source that I have found who draws together all the scattered threads of thought and puposes that seem to lie at the root of our investigations -- if one desires to call her an "authority," well and good -- they have that freedom. On the other hand, HPB herself repeatedly (as Daniel Caldwell reminds us) rejected such a claim. Why should I place it upon her unwilling head ? All I say and will continue to say is: Whom do we know who has provided us with that kind of survey in bredth and depth that she has ? I reverence her work and am indebted to her and all Those who have enabled it. ==================================================== >>It speaks of universal Law and admits on no deviations or exceptions. > >Here is one more place where interpretation comes into play. My own >study of HPB tells me that when she uses the term universe, she means >only our own solar system of 7 planes. And deviations and exceptions >are actually built into these laws and allowed at times (its called free >will). > >>It is a moral law ... > >Ouch!! I really wish you wouldn't do this to me. The notion of a >universal moral law is repugnant to me (I side with Chuck on this >one). Morality is completely a human invention and, as I have >already demonstrated in a past article, Kohlberg's moral scale >clearly indicates that the higher we rise in morality the more >relative good and evil look to us. ============================================= DALAS I know I have misused the word "moral" as it usually means "customary." But substitute for that "ethical." If you desire to still more impersonalize the concept let me offer the following: That which is done voluntarily, using ove's free will, in accord with NATURE'S LAWS is "good," ethical, moral. Anything that is done in vilation of NATURE'S LAWS is the reverse. NATURE'S LAWS is the totality of KARMA, as I understand it. The question of individual or personal interpretations of "good," and "bad," are always subject to modifications and interpretations. If the concept can be impersonalized and universalized, then the snags may disappear. But that also is not final, since anyone has the unfortunate freedom of seeing "universal and impersonal" as they please -- which puts it into the realm of illusive sentiment, of feeling and desire -- finally of selfishness -- and that is KAMA ====================================== > > >>Finally that each of us has a conscious "Ray" of the Universal Spirit >>resident within and this serves us as a tutor if and when we (as personal >>beings) desire instruction. It is on this inner, or "spiritual" plane that >>the Adepts are UNIVERSALLY alive. > >Agreed. > > >>I notice that many seem to have only a vague idea of what constitutes >>messages or writings from Adepts. Or, if some are advanced, how to >>distinguish them from trashy statements. Is not the proof of their value >>interior to the writing or message? Have we the ability to distinguish >>value from trash ? > >One man's trash is another man's value. There are various shades >or levels of Adepts, and each tries to reach an audience specific to >his or her Teaching. Just because a teaching doesn't help me, for >example, it does not conclude that it is trash because it may help >someone else who is receptive to that idea. Thus I try to respect all >Teaching and Teachers even though I may not agree with them. > >Thanks for your thoughts Dallas. I don't always agree with you, but >I do enjoy your postings. ====================================== Dear Jerry: I also value your views as it helps me to make myself clearer (I hope) in what I write. I do hope the above clarifies more than it annoys. I think most differences are superficial anyway, and as time passes, and as we all exchange our learning, we share in each other's advances and profit from the many errors we are still encombered with. Such is life and progress. best wishes to you as always, Dal. >Jerry S. > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 10:51:31 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:32:43 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-Id: <199808141532.AA16097@lafn.org> >>What would you accept as "reliable evidence"? > >I would accept a case study where it could be proven that celibacy does have >results that non-celibats cannot acheive. You make me Chuckle. But if you will only accept a "case study" -- so be it. I will keep an eye out for one. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 11:10:53 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:51:21 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Reverence for HPB Message-Id: <199808141551.AA27210@lafn.org> Dallas: >All I say and will continue to say is: Whom do we know who has provided us >with that kind of survey in bredth and depth that she has ? I reverence her >work and am indebted to her and all Those who have enabled it. So do I. Reverence and devotion, to whom or whatever, are sadly lacking in this time. Passion, energy -- yes -- but little reverence. But one can understand this. We can only rever one who greater than ourselves and who can abide that thought of being inferior nowadays. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 12:51:32 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:46:25 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: Re: #364 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: <002801bdc7ab$771a76c0$a80a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Chuck wrote: >The idea that the universe is responsive to any human value system is an >absurdity and any idea that it would actually care about individual human >behavior is laughable. Dear Chuck, maybe the universe gave up on you, you unrepentant heretic. Meanwhile it conspires to help anybody who is serious about its reason for being to fulfill that. Govert From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 13:04:56 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:46:36 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <002b01bdc7ab$7c687f00$a80a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: >> >> Surely reading what is attributed to a "Maha Chohan 82" would make anyone >> wonder about the sanity of those transmitting such things. Makes no sense >> as far as I can see it. Bjorn wrote: >It makes plain simple common sense to me. In the passage quoted below it is >simply stated that "we" (people of this generation, in the western civilization) >are subject to influences that tend to dissipate the life force ("light" or >"kundalini"). Some of those influences are listed: nicotine, alcohol, >self-abuse, rock music and drugs. They are declared to be unhealthy, producing >"death" rather than life. We are urged to wean ourselves from addiction to these >elements of our civilization, even though it will require the passing through >some witdrawal symptoms. Thank you, Bjorn, for translating the words of the Maha Chohan in everyday language, though it was quite clear to me in the first place. Maybe some quotes should be explained or re-read to convey the sense and depth of it. Govert From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 13:12:00 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:46:11 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-14 02:27:05 EDT, you write: >Also your description of the "case study" is downright vague. Could you >please define in some detail what you mean by "results"? DETAILS ARE >ESSENTIAL and you don't give any. > >Cheers. > > What we have here are the limits of e-mail lists. Musashi is an excellent case because he has left his own writings by which he can be judged, unlike others, which is why I chose to cite him. One could also use the example of Mohammed, who left behind the Koran as well as creating an empire to spread it as well as a family so we know for sure he was not celibate. On the matter of conscience, I side with the behaviorists and their material is easily accessible, so there is not need to quote it here and bore the hell out of everyone. Besides, I don't work that way, it's no fun. The research on that seems to be pretty sound but of course we can argue forever about that without coming to any agreement. The truth of the matter, which is what I am really trying to get to, is that there really can be no proof of any of spiritual system. For every assertion a counter-assertion can be made with equal validity. For every example there is a counter-example. So one may say the universe is compassionate, to which one may counter that it showed a hell of a lot of compassion for the dinosaurs. One may say that the universe is just, but Stalin and Mao died peacefully in bed. One can posit a universe such as our Victorian forbears did, which reflected the way they thought it should be, to which one can counter with a universe which frankly doesn't give a damn. And, given the time and trouble, one can make a case for either. Therefore, on the basis of all available evidence of history, I can assert that the Universe is unjust, does not worry about human behavior and to even worry about such things is a waste of time which means that the search for enlightenment, presupposing that such a thing even exists, must go on without concerning itself with social side shows, and I can say this as much as a I want because no one can prove otherwise; the sum of human events aims that way. For this one need cite no academic research, no books, no papers, no footnotes. One need only live and experience because experience is the only true authority. Everything else is just hot air and citing it is a waste of time. Chuck From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 13:27:09 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:57:52 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <39e97812.35d47aa1@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-14 11:57:28 EDT, you write: >You make me Chuckle. But if you will only accept a "case study" -- so be >it. I will keep an eye out for one. > > Good luck because for every instance there is probably a counter-instance. For example, let's take a rather useless talent, levitation. Lots of celibates have been known to do it in front of enough witnesses that the stories can probably be believed. St. Joseph of Coppertino did it in front of Leibnitz, for example. But then so did D. D. Home and his love affairs were notorious. Chuck From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 13:36:46 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:53:22 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <7db24c11.35d47994@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-14 10:57:14 EDT, you write: >And who finally gets to "pay" for what you might call "fun ?" > >Is suffering to others the only joy that anyone should look forward to ? > >Does such a motive not hurt us too ? Or have we developed calluses that ? > >Dal No one pays ultimately. If we don't develop calluses, we end up having very unhappy lives. The world is not a pleasant place. That is a fact which cannot be sugared over. One either learns to deal with and let things just sort of run off like water off a duck, or one goes through life in a state of vicarious misery. dispassion and detachment are not always possible, but without them it is very difficult to function. Chuck From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 13:41:58 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:11:06 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas Message-ID: <35D47DBA.2@azstarnet.com> References: <199808141532.AA16097@lafn.org> Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas Paul, In your original post titled "HPB sides with Kym against Dallas" you wrote: >Like Kym, I've felt strong disagreement with Dallas's repeated > claims to the effect that "without HPB the world would know > nothing of Theosophy." And apparently to show that Dallas' statement was without foundation and in error you quoted HPB's words from the Preface to Volume I of THE SECRET DOCTRINE: > "These truths are in no sense put forward as a *revelation*; nor > does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, > now made public for the first time in the world's history. For > what is contained in this book is to be found scattered > throughout thousands of volumes of the great Asiatic and early > European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto > left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to > gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one > harmonious and unbroken whole." Then you give your own commentary on HPB's words: > The only part of this passage which might possibly support > Dallas's extravagant claim on HPB's behalf is the phrase > "hitherto left unnoticed." But in fact these ideas were not > hitherto entirely unnoticed; HPB was simply the first to > introduce them to a *vast international* public. She deserves credit for that, > but *not* for being the first person who ever taught the doctrines > we know as Theosophy. I find it interesting that she portrays > herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and > "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a > precise description of what she did. But those who make wild > claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to > attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a > whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a > silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all > already. > Notice the last sentence of your commentary: >But those who make wild > claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to > attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a > whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a > silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all > already. It would appear that you possibly believed that the just-quoted statement from HPB also contradicted "those who make WILD claims on her behalf", e.g., HPB "was given the full [esoteric, occult, theosophical] doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all already." MY MAJOR POINT in criticism directed toward your post was that in order to understand what you had quoted from HPB one would need to read MORE of the same paragraph. In fact, read the whole paragraph. And I quote below that full paragraph: "These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, now made public for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this work is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes embodying the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and observation. The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered necessary by the wild and fanciful speculations in which many Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last few years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a complete system of thought from the few facts previously communicated to them." Whatever HPB is attempting to communicate in the first part of the paragraph that you orginally brought forth to refute Dallas, I suggest that what IMMEDIATELY follows (and was NOT quoted by you) is EXTREMELY RELEVANT to fully understanding the part that you quoted. Especially since you then go on and pooh-pooh the alleged claim that HPB "was given the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all already." But notice HPB's words which you did NOT quote: "The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and observation." I contend that HPB's phrase "The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors" refers back to be words immmediately before. One should also ask: HPB's "sole advantage" in doing WHAT? In this paragraph, one statement flows into the next and to "stop short" and not quote what immediately follows is to miss the whole message conveyed in the entire paragraph. In your various writings, you have given the impression that HPB compiled (from various books and from various doctrines of isolated "adepts" that she may have known) the Theosophical teachings that are to be found in her books. In other words, HPB's Theosophy is some kind of "eclectic" mix from diverse sources. The word hodge-podge also comes to mind. One dictionary gives a definition of eclectic: "Selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines. . . ." In other words, HPB in fact did "resort to personal speculations and theories." And had her background, experiences, meetings with "adepts" been different, you would probably, contend that her compilation of teachings would have been necessarily different. This kind of thinking on your part makes clear why you pooh-pooh the claim that HPB "was given the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all already." Of course, I don't know that any serious Blavatsky student would necessarily agree with your characterization that HPB "was given the FULL doctrine ON A SILVER PLATTER by a single authoritative source which had it all already." This seems to be a caricature of what HPB and the Adepts actually claimed. One would have to know what you mean by FULL and what you mean by ON A SILVER PLATTER before agreeing or disagreeing with your definitions. But in HPB's writings from 1875 to 1891, she refers to the Occult Brotherhood and THE Esoteric Doctrine of that Brotherhood. One need only read THE MAHATMA LETTERS for the same view. Koot Hoomi and Morya constantly refer to A COHERENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR KEEPING and to giving out at least some of those teachings through HPB's writings as well as in their own letters to Sinnett and Hume. So I would say it is not a wild claim to believe that there was a "single authoritative source which had it all already." HPB says as much time and time and time again. Ditto for the Mahatmas. I append below some quotations relevant to this subject: "The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of THEIR SCIENCE. . . We came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious powers and such PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE that we may truly designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their INSTRUCTIONS we lent a ready ear. . . . " ISIS, I, pp. v-vi. Caps added. ". . . from the first ages of man, THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS of all that we are permitted to know on earth was in the safe keeping of the adepts of the sanctuary. . . those guardians of the primitive divine revelation, who had solved every problem that is within the grasp of human intellect were bound together by a universal freemasonry of science and philosophy, which formed one unbroken chain around the globe. . . ." Isis, I, 37-38. This same theme is given throughout THE MAHATMA LETTERS. "In this curry of quotations from various philosophic and esoteric truths purposely veiled [Koot Hoomi is speaking here of HPB's book "Isis Unveiled"], behold OUR DOCTRINE, which is now being partially taught to Europeans for the first time." Mahatma K.H., The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed. p. 118 Caps added. Speaking of the book ISIS UNVEILED, Master K.H. writes: ". . . for its *incompleteness* no one but we, her [HPB's] INSPIRERS are responsible. . . ." ML, p. 169. Again speaking of ISIS UNVEILED and Madame Blavatsky, Master KH pens the following: " 'You will write so and so, give *so far*, and no more.'---she was constantly told by us, when writing her book. . . . And is it because she obeyed our orders, and wrote, purposely *veiling* some of her facts---that now, when WE think the time has arrived to give most of, if not the *whole* truth---that she has to be left in the lurch?. . ." ML, 285 Caps added. And I repeat the quotes I first gave a few days ago: Master Koot Hoomi in his August 1888 letter to Colonel Olcott specifically says about the forthcoming publication of THE SECRET DOCTRINE: "I have also noted your thoughts about the Secret Doctrine. Be assured that what she has not annotated from scientific and other works we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or erroneous notion corrected and explained by her from the works of other Theosophists was corrected by me or under my instruction. It is a more valuable work than its predecessor, - an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to come." This is pretty plain English, Paul. And in the same volume of THE SECRET DOCTRINE from which you quoted, HPB writes: "When the present work [The Secret Doctrine] was commenced, the writer, feeling sure that the speculation [by A.P. Sinnett] about Mars and Mercury was a mistake, applied to the Teachers [KH and M] by letter for explanation and an authoritative version. Both came in due time, and verbatim extracts from these are now given." I, 165 AN AUTHORITATIVE VERSION!!! [PAUL, THIS QUOTE ON MARS/MERCURY IS VERY APPROPRIATE/RELEVANT TO HPB'S PARAGRAPH WHICH YOU ONLY PARTIALLY QUOTED. READ THE LATTER PART OF THAT PARAGRAPH IN HPB'S PREFACE. . . . AGAIN SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO RELY ON PERSONAL SPECULATION. SHE CAN ASK KOOT HOOMI AND MORYA, AS SHE DID ON THE MARS/MERCURY QUESTION.] IN SUMMARY: There are literally dozens of similar statements found through the Secret Doctrine where she writes that her source is the Adept Brotherhood. HPB herself also wrote from 1875 up to her death in 1891 that she had an "authoritative source": the occult knowledge of the Adept brotherhood of which KH and M. were members. I will stop quoting since I could literally give hundreds of quotations from HPB's writings and the Masters' letters on this same CONSISTENT THEME. Koot Hoomi and his brother adepts had an Esoteric Doctrine and they allowed H P Blavatsky to give out portions of it, etc. HP Blavatsky didn't have to rummage through various old writings and try to divine what might or might not have been various occult truths. She had direct access to these teachings from her own personal Master and from several others of the much doubted Occult Brotherhood. ONE SIDE NOTE: What is HPB attempting to do when she quotes from hundreds of various books, etc in her writings? Paul, you apparently have some OTHER strange misconception concerning her reason for quoting all these sources. I won't go into an analysis of this at this time BUT IT CERTAINLY NEEDS TO BE GONE INTO. Soon I want to try to go back and deal with Jerry Schueler's comments on the alleged improbability of the existence of the Occult Brotherhood as described by HPB, Olcott, Damodar, M., KH. and others. I also need to do part II of my essay dealing with the more than 30 persons who have claimed (after HPB's death) to be HPB's successor and the new messenger of the Masters. Thanks to Govert and Bjorn for your initial comments. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 15:07:38 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:58:55 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: celibacy Message-Id: <199808141958.AA00132@lafn.org> >The truth of the matter, which is what I am really trying to get to, is that >there really can be no proof of any of spiritual system. For every assertion >a counter-assertion can be made with equal validity. For every example there >is a counter-example. If no proof but only equal validity surrounds us, then, from your viewpoint, there is only your choice as the "authority". The difficulty you have with finding and ranking values is common with many bright people. But hopefully you can see how, given a choice between the voice of Chuck and the voices of tradition, some of us prefer the latter [...] >For this one need cite no academic research, no books, no papers, no >footnotes. One need only live and experience because experience is the only >true authority. Everything else is just hot air and citing it is a waste of >time. So when you mentioned a "case study" as evidence you were just joking? I do not see how your experience can be an authority if you ignore or reject gobs of evidence and the experience of others. If you prefer one type of evidence and choose it -- fine -- but don't call that choice an "experience". All you are doing is picking what appeals and rejecting what does not. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 15:12:50 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:48:51 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: two levels of messages Message-Id: <199808141946.OAA04951@proteus.imagiware.com> In-Reply-To: <002b01bdc7ab$7c687f00$a80a9cd1@Prod.prodigy.net> Govert: >Thank you, Bjorn, for translating the words of the Maha Chohan in >everyday language, though it was quite clear to me in the first >place. Maybe some quotes should be explained or re-read to convey >the sense and depth of it. W.Q. Judge was an example of a theosophical writer that put important principles in plain language. It's something important, something we're constantly reminded of the need for, as we see how easily things are misunderstood or not grasped by people. If the idea being communicated is simple, and there is no other intent in the communication, plain language is, I think, best. Graphic language, with metaphors or concrete figures of speech have the greatest impact on readers. We can say something clearly and lucidly, so that even difficult ideas seem simple and understandable. Or we can try a different tack and stop short of saying something, setting the stage for the reader to take the final step and arrive at the idea by themselves. Apart from the value of the ideas, the importance of the materials we're sharing or teaching, there may be an attempt to take someone with one into a lofty, spiritual state of mind. When doing this, the particular ideas being discussed aren't as important as the aura, the radiance, the *suchness* of the thought atmosphere that one is functioning in and sharing with others. This has to do with the *space* that one arrives at in ones inner work, when taking further steps beyond the intellectual brain-mind study of the texts. The ideas in the quote attributed to the Mahachohan seem clear enough, and I think that few would disagree that doing negative things are harmful and dissipate our energies. Where there may be disagreement would be whether the colorful manner of expression indicates, and draws people into a higher state of mind, or if it is a pretense, lacking in esotericism and not drawing one into a higher state. One of the first steps on awakening new faculties, on becoming something that one is not, is *faking it*. We picture ourselves as being that which we want to be, visualize and act in accord with the bigger and better version of ourselves that we still fall far short of. And we continue to saturate our awareness in that of the *would be* until one day we find ourselves changed and we've become that very thing. Because of this power that our belief has, I don't think that it's good to try to take away from someone something that works for them, unless one is at the same time drawing them into something better. So as regards the quote attributed to the Mahachohan, ever if I question its source and esoteric nature, I'd not take on challenging it unless I had the time and energy to engage in a constructive dialogue, and to offer or provide some materials that I'd consider genuine at the same time. For now, though, I'd just say that I personally question its source, and say that the disagreement that some may have with it is on its secondary message, on its poetic or esoteric side, and not on the simpler idea, the primary message, where it says that doing bad things dissipate our energies. -- Eldon From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 16:37:38 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:51:27 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: How do you spell "celibacy?" Message-ID: <004b01bdc7c7$7f29b120$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >And there we have it. Evidence of CWL's *direct opposition* to the >time-honoured tradition of training of (occult) students. Also, how were the >students "taught"? What age were they? Maybe the Leadbeater fans out there >could enlighten us. > THe "time-honored tradition" that you suggest does not, and never did exist except in certain small schools. >"Do not believe that lust can ever be killed out if gratified or satiated, >for this is an abomination inspired by Mara. It is by feeding vice that it >expands and waxes strong, like to the worm that fattens on the blossom's >heart." (The Voice of the Silence, pg 17). > >Best wishes, >Paul (Bazzer). I am sorry to see you equate masturbation with lust. They are not, at least to me, the same thing at all. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 16:42:46 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:03:50 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <004d01bdc7c7$80e5b900$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >In a message dated 98-08-13 18:43:22 EDT, you write: > >> This excessive >>development has to be fought against, and the instinct reduced within >>natural limits, and this will certainly never be done by easy-going >>self-indulgence within the marital relation any more than by self-indulgence >>outside it. By none other road than that of self-control and self-denial >>can men and women now set going the causes which will build for them brains >>and bodies of a higher type for their future return to earth-life. > >And here we have proof that even our beloved HPB was capable of spouting >flapdoodle. > >So much for argument by authority. > >Chuck > I believe that the life story of Buddha shows that he tried self-control and self-denial and found them to be wanting. His message to us is moderation; the middle way. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 16:51:37 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:58:03 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <004c01bdc7c7$7ff31ba0$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >Celibacy, alone and with little or no attraction for divinity and virtue, >can produce insanity. But when one is ready it is essential. Patanjali >and generations of yogis, many known for a higher wisdom and compassion >know that. Shankara and the renunciate order he founded know that. >Buddha and his celibate monks know that. No, not every celibate monk or >nun is an arhat, bodhisattva or sage -- but no arhat, bodhisattva or sage >can reach that stage without celibacy. Which by the way, means much more >than abstaining from copulation. > Please read Sex and Buddhism which shows the opposite of what you are saying here. The notion that "no arhat, bodhisattva or sage can reach that stage without celibacy" is sheer flapdoodle. You will not even find HPB or her Masters saying such a silly thing. What they do say is that celibacy is expected in _their_ system. There have been countless Tibetan bodisattvas, for example, who practice karmamudra--meditation while in sexual union with a partner. One of the greatest Adepts of all time was Ramakrisna, and he was married. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 16:54:12 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:45:20 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Approaching adepts Message-ID: <004a01bdc7c7$7e6046a0$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >If I want to study music, and I want to find a best possible teacher, an >'adept' of his/her own art, I look and can find him/her in the physical >plane. Same goes with all the other 'arts'. But this is not true for >spirituality, I believe this is what you are saying? > Yes. Physical Adepts abound on Earth, but to find the "right" one for your own personal developmental needs is very hard to do. In today's USA it is practically impossible, thought I agree that it is possible (Da Free John is the guru of Ken Wilber, for example. When Wilber publically admitted this, he lost a lot of his following who didn't like Da Free John). >And if there are these 'real adepts' only in inner planes, do we >personally need them? I am sure there are lot of people here 'on earth' >that we can learn from. > > >mika Perala Where do you thing spiritual and uplifting thoughts come from? When a spiritual or loving idea comes into our mind, where do you think its source may be? Dis-carnate Teachers (whom HPB called nirmanakayas) do this. There is an article in this months Quest about a Teacher visited in dreams, etc. I find these kind of gurus to be more meaningful and helpful to me than physical Teachers. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 17:07:37 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:46:10 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <35D4B022.581DF695@sprynet.com> References: <69aef3ac.35d3c740@aol.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > I would accept a case study where it could be proven that celibacy does have > results that non-celibats cannot acheive. The fact that there is no celibate > in the christian tradition that has done anything not duplicated by non- > celibates pretty much leaves that one out. (Protestants can match anything the > Roman Catholics have done and they do not honor celibacy in any way. It is, > in fact, looked upon as a spiritual perversion). In Judaism, the first commandment in the Bible is "Be fruitful and multiply" (given as a blessing to Adam and Eve, but as a commandment to Noah and his children). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 17:14:12 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:44:22 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: two levels of messages Message-ID: <35D4AFB6.AA4BB921@usa.net> References: <199808141946.OAA04951@proteus.imagiware.com> Eldon B Tucker wrote: > The ideas in the quote attributed to the Mahachohan seem > clear enough, and I think that few would disagree that > doing negative things are harmful and dissipate our energies. > Where there may be disagreement would be whether the colorful > manner of expression indicates, and draws people into a > higher state of mind, or if it is a pretense, lacking in > esotericism and not drawing one into a higher state. Yes, and each person will have his own experience and thus "proof" unto himself, either way. As for me, I first heard some dictations given through ECP in 1976, in Sweden. I didn't know anything about ECP or her organization at the time, and I didn't even understand English well enough to follow what was being said on the tape! I woud say that I was not biased in any direction as far as the authentiticity of this phenomenon. My experience was undeniable, however. Upon listening to one of these dications I was quickly drawn up in an "alternative state of consciousness". Prior to this I had had tangible and intense experience of higher states through medition, which was my frame of reference at the time. I found that the sphere of awareness I entered into through the dictations outdid my meditation experiences by many light years. That's what convinced me. Bjorn From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 18:29:44 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:17:49 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Up the creek Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980814171749.007a3960@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808141523.KAA17289@proteus.imagiware.com> Dallas wrote: >All your questions about deserving or non-deserving can only be answered >interiorly, if you question your own motives, knowledge and purpose for such >a contact. Yet, again, you have ignored my questions to you. Well, no matter - I expected such - however, I doubt I will find the answer to where I used "barnyard terms" or how Dallas himself thinks regarding his own extra-responsibility in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. Is there a page in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY that talks about you specifically and one that speaks of Kym's horrifying terminology? Odd, I don't recall there being any. Also, it is HPB, and not me, who INSISTED the "Masters" were real, walking, talking, human beings. So, for a person (and I am not one of them) to wish for a physical visit from the "Masters" has had the seed of such a wish planted in them from HPB. Oh, and, the "Masters" still visited HPB even though she smoked, cursed, and engaged in some other indulgences, such as over-eating. Why she married, then never foogie-foogied with her husbands (she had more than one, it is said) is a mystery. But the point is: The "Masters" seem to visit those who do NOT adhere very strictly to what is supposed to make one in the physical sense, according to some folks on this list, trucking down the path of "spirituality." Which means: NO ONE can really claim any knowledge as to whom a "Master" would choose to dine with since none of us can ever know what is in someone's heart. Which means: At this point, we are all in the running for such a visit - or we are all in the same boat. Well, hot dog! Grab a paddle, Dallas, and have a seat - you can sit next to me if you want, but I get the cushion since you've been so liverish. Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:00:06 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:38:43 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <008c01bdc7da$f8973920$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Daniel Caldwell replies: > >But as far as I can tell, Chuck, you too are only giving >"blind assertions and argument by authority [sounds like YOUR >AUTHORITY]." Where is your reliable proof? > I know that Chuck can take care of himself, but I have to mention here that Crowley (probably not regarded highly on this list, but oh well) tried an experiment and went several months without sex, then went several months with constant sex. When he compared the two intervals, his writing, creativity, and spiritual perceptions were the same during both intervals. He concluded that sex makes little difference. I tried a somewhat similar experiement years ago with the same result. Sex or celibacy makes little difference. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:04:59 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:36:48 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Reverence for life Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980814173648.007a3960@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808142014.PAA07829@proteus.imagiware.com> Nicholas wrote: >So do I. Reverence and devotion, to whom or whatever, are sadly lacking >in this time. Passion, energy -- yes -- but little reverence. >We can only rever one who greater than >ourselves and who can abide that thought of being inferior nowadays. Wrong-o. Reverence takes many forms - it need not include establishing who is "greater" and who is "inferior" anymore. Many people of today have trancended that type of thinking - as one begins to recognize their own potential and their ONENESS will all, reverence for EVERYTHING grows. The lines that separate us disappear - and, when one looks at life from that perspective, one understands that reverence and love can enter EVERYWHERE; reverence is not something simply 'set aside' for certain individuals. One is practicing reverence when praying or planting a tree. . .it is simply a matter of how one perceives the world. Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:11:01 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:55:33 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Celibacy is just the beginning Message-ID: <008d01bdc7da$fb8a8880$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Dallas offers: > >On the subject of sex. What is the main REASON for intercourse ? > >Is it to have children and take on the responsibilities of family life and >raising decent children or is it not ? > Not. Actually, it is psychologically necessary for what is called intimacy, and intimacy is a necessary human developmental task. >If it is pursued purely because of some pleasure -- then does that justify >promiscuity? And from that prostitution ? > There are lots of forms of prostitution. Doing anything for money that you really wouldn't otherwise do is prostitution. A lot of folks do this when they go off to work each morning. There is not much difference in having sex for pleasure as in eating for pleasure or scratching an itch for pleasure or going swimming for pleasure, etc. Seeking after pleasure is what most folks do in one way or another. I like to read Theosphy for pleasure. >What is our attitude towards motherhood, sisterhood, one's wife or daughter >(or reversibly, one's father, brother, son, other men ?). > I agree that seeing others as sex objects or "meat" is wrong. >Only the most vile of humans who have descended to the level of the >sub-bestial, have ever made of sex a matter of usage and display -- and yet, >here we now live in an age of permissiveness, and one's "rights" are thrown >against the old customs and views of the past ? Are we any the better or >safer or happier for this condition ? > Actually, animals never use sex for casual display. Yet it is interesting that so far as we know, all animals soever masturbate. >One of the signs of the sad condition of our times is the fact that >so-called psychologists have made it their work to find excuses and >persuasive reasons why sex-life (and its many kinds of perversions) ought to >be advertised. If the continuing individuality and karma are not to be >considered, are we to do worse than the animals do, who have their natural >seasons for conception and exercise usually the greatest protective care >over their little ones ? > One of the primary differences between humans and animals is that animals have seasons while humans are horney all the time. Please think about this seriously the next time you point out how far above the animals we humans are. > The Soul is neither male nor female. Only the body of the >present incarnation is provided under karma in one sex or the other for the >purpose of meeting and adjusting our past karma -- says Theosophy. > I disagree with this, and so would science because it has been clearly established that the male and female brains have differences. What is the brain if not a physical expression of the soul? I would say that the spirit has no such sexual differences, but the soul certainly does. >As students of Theosophy have we considered Karmatically what promiscuity >implies -- in terms of liaisons that may last for many lives -- in terms of >children who are not PROTECTED by their fathers or mothers and are the real >orphans, the changelings, of the world ? This may appear a strange >question. But Theosophy presents us with a view of karmic operations not >provided in or by any other source. It is one of real importance for us at >this stage of our joint evolution. > Actually I agree with you here. They don't call fooling around karmamudra without reason--you mix yourself up in the karma of another when you take on a physical partner. I have done so with my wife of 35 years and would do so again. >Now comes a clincher for me: Would it me possible for one to be both an >occultist and a family person simultaneously ? > Yes, but I admit that it is difficult. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:17:32 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:22:30 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <008e01bdc7da$fd0b0e00$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >----- >DALLAS: According to what I understand, the "Masters" (or Mahatmas) exist >permenently on the "inner planes" of the whole Universe, namely the three >transcendent planes delineated in SD I 200. > This is not my understanding except in the sense that there are usually some of them so existing at any time. There are, in fact, six inner planes. The three that you refer to are obviously the astral, mental, and casual which exist below the Abyss and which contain HPB's 7 Globes. I don't know what you mean by "transcendent" but our emotions are on the astral right now, and our thoughts are on the mental right now. >In Man's 7-fold nature they correspond to ATMA, BUDDI, MANAS. I can't see how these three highest principles are on the three lowest inner planes. Atma is above the Abyss, Buddhi is on the causal, and manas or our thinking mind is on themental plane. > In the SD HPB >states several times that these are immortal principles, and they constitue >the Real Man. They are immortal and eternal in the sense that they will last so long as our manvantara lasts, but they are not eternal in the sense of never ever having an end. All three exist in space-time and thus in maya. They are, in short, mayavic. Here, on Earth, our personalities are reflections, obscure, >blurred, uncertain as far as our present consciousness when we are awake, is >concerned. You and othes may say I am in error in this, but if we think >carefully about the Theosophical statements that relate to Consciousness >this may become apparent. > I do believe that I read something about the personality being a pale reflection of the individuality. Is this what you mean? (sorry, I am letting sarcasm get the best of me here, and I should be above that sort of stuff). Agreed. >We are therefore "transparent" to the perception of an Adept (Mahatma) who >would only "contact" us as personalities if we had some value in our work, >for humanity. This to me is made quite plain in the case of Sinnett (as an >example) and can be readily seen if we read MAHATMA LETTERS and LETTERS FROM HPB TO AP SINNETT. > While our bodies and emotions are transparent, they do, I think, see into our thoughts and ideas. Contact with such is often done during dreams which we may or may not recall when we wake. >To our selves, our pesonality. and all its memories and doings and motives >(as an embodied mind that uses a physical and an astral brain) IN THIS LIFE >are important. > Of course they are. >But, as I understnd it, it is only when we make a strong effort to raise >ourselves as thought-men out of the personality and its comfortable >limitations. that we are able by strong effort attain to some of the >perceptions of the REal Man -- the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS. > I think you are confused here, or at least I am not reading you. What are "thought-men?" The strong effort that we make is to raise our consciousness beyond thought altogether. This is equivalent to rising above the mental plane. We already know what our manas is. Most of us already know what our buddhi is (intuition). Few know the atma or spirit, but this is because it exists above the Abyss and we have to cross that obstacle in order to confront our atma or spiritual self. >For this reason Theosophy says (as I understand it) that we are >"IMMORTALS" -- in that root essence, from which our present "Personality" >derives its being. > Our present personality is on the mental and astral planes. Our Reincarnating Ego is on the causal plane, and to see it directly we have to rise above the mental plane to the causal--the equivalent of rising above our thinking processes (and yes, it can be done. The result is called samadhi). >We all know that one thing is certain: this Personality will presently >"die" and be disssolved. Into what ? What happens ? Religions try to >grapple with this, and if one studies many of those one encounters at their >core the same set of root or core ideas. > Like the physical body, it disintegrates. This is why crossing the Abyss is so scary--it is nothing less than the death of the ego. BTW, we are said to have a "little death" in orgasm because the ego looses control for a few moments. It is said that this is the real reason why some people are so opposed to sexual acts. >In order to be brief, let me say that the tenets of Theosophy apply there, >and can be seen to lie at those several roots and cores. Hence HPB states >that Theosophy s the Root and substratum of all the many World Religions. > I don't have any problem in what you are saying in the above paragraph, but it is very clear to me that your Theosophy is not my Theosophy even though we both read and study the same HPB. Interesting, no? >But I further add, and in defence of HPB and Theosophy, WE CAN ONLY ASSURE >OURSELVES OF THIS IF WE STUDY WHAT HPB WRITES. > We can also be assured of this when we rise above thoughts and face the Abyss and see the Atma directly. I have done so, which just goes to show how easy it must be. >We may have many ideas, and we may have "made contact" earler that our >contact with "Theosophy" as HPB recorded it with some or all of these ideas. >That does not obviate the fact that Theosophy draws all together and can be >used to shortcut much of the tedium of research. Personally, I rather like Theosophy, at least in the sense that I understand it. Jerry S. From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:29:11 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:08:36 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: celibacy Message-Id: <199808150008.AA17358@lafn.org> Nicholas: >[Celibacy or brahmacharya] means much more >>than abstaining from copulation. Jerry S: > There >have been countless Tibetan bodisattvas, for example, who practice >karmamudra--meditation while in sexual union with a partner. One >of the greatest Adepts of all time was Ramakrisna, and he was >married. Ven. Gyaltrul Rinpoche writes: It is not exactly clear how westerners got the idea that married couples, or any couple for that matter, having a lot of desire for each other, could practice the vajrayana techniques... They want an experience of something more blissful than ever before. This is one of the biggest mistakes a person can make. This activity does not even approximate the [tantric] practices we are discussing... Pure Dharma has nothing to do with ordinary sexual desire. Since deities do not have desires, it is a grave error to visualize oneself as a deity to achieve purposes conceived by a desiring mind... ~Secret Oral Teachings~ p.89 -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:37:57 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:25:01 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <35D4D55D.5B5@azstarnet.com> References: <008c01bdc7da$f8973920$227d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > > I know that Chuck can take care of himself, but I have to mention > here that Crowley (probably not regarded highly on this list, but oh well) > tried an experiment and went several months without sex, then went > several months with constant sex. When he compared the two > intervals, his writing, creativity, and spiritual perceptions were the > same during both intervals. He concluded that sex makes little > difference. I tried a somewhat similar experiement years ago > with the same result. Sex or celibacy makes little difference. > Daniel Caldwell replies: But Jerry, several months without sex may not tell us anything one way or the other. The time period may not be long enough in order to see if there are real differences or not. Maybe several years would be needed or even longer. Also there may be other factors/conditions that are also needed; not just abstinence from sex. Were you vegetarian doing this same period? etc. Also during that period of time, did Crowley or you think about sex, etc.? From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:47:31 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:13:20 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Bjorn and EC Prophet Message-ID: <35D4D2A0.1EDD@azstarnet.com> References: <199808141946.OAA04951@proteus.imagiware.com> <35D4AFB6.AA4BB921@usa.net> Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > Yes, and each person will have his own experience and thus "proof" unto himself, > either way. As for me, I first heard some dictations given through ECP in 1976, > in Sweden. I didn't know anything about ECP or her organization at the time, and > I didn't even understand English well enough to follow what was being said on > the tape! I woud say that I was not biased in any direction as far as the > authentiticity of this phenomenon. My experience was undeniable, however. Upon > listening to one of these dications I was quickly drawn up in an "alternative > state of consciousness". Prior to this I had had tangible and intense experience > of higher states through medition, which was my frame of reference at the time. > I found that the sphere of awareness I entered into through the dictations > outdid my meditation experiences by many light years. That's what convinced me. Bjorn, please consider the following: Is it possible that your "alternative state of consciousness" had nothing to do with the validity/nonvalidity of EC Prophet's "dictation"? Many individuals have had profound mystical experiences which were seemingly triggered by even prosaic things. Or is it even possible that your experience was somehow "deceptive". I have a mystical friend who for years believed in Eckankar and the Eck Masters. He had many profound mystical experiences which he believed was caused by the Eck Masters. His experiences validated for him the existence, etc. of these Eck Teachers. In subsequent years he has read Dr. David Christopher Lane's book on Eckankar which clearly shows that these Eck Masters were made up by the fertile imagination of Paul Twitchell. My friend still does not doubt the reality of those mystical experiences but he is now not so sure exactly what caused his experiences!!! Or take another example. Your own EC Prophet channeled "Kuthumi" concerning Alice Bailey: “In the past we have had to withdraw our support from those who were given the opportunity to represent us. The one who for a time had the opportunity of representing the master Djwal Kul soon lost that authority through intellectual pride and the brittleness of the lower mental body, which can never be the channel of the mind of God. Thus I expose to you the false teachings subtly woven into the work of Alice Bailey, whose failure to surrender totally rendered her unfit as an instrument of the Tibetan Master.” “An Exposé of False Teachings,” Pearls of Wisdom, February 1, 1976, p. 28. Now if we ASSUME this is really "Kuthumi" giving the messsage to Ms. Prophet, and further assume that what is said about Alice Bailey is "gospel truth", how do we explain the experiences of many serious, longtime Bailey students who have ALSO had profound spiritual and mystical experiences? Some have told me that it was their involvement with a true messenger (Bailey) and the genuine writings of DK/Bailey, etc. which caused their profound experiences. How is this possible if what "Kuthumi" (via Prophet) says is really true? Are their "spiritual experiences" deceptive while yours is not? If your spiritual experiences validate Prophet's claims why can't the Bailey students' spiritual experiences also be proof of the validity of Bailey's claims? I'm not trying to diss your "inner experiences" but the above examples could be multiplied by the scores. If we truly seek truth (which might be uncomfortable to our present beliefs), then shouldn't we ask such difficult questions and look for the true answers even if the truth might be other than what we desire? From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 19:59:43 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:50:37 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #368 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980814185037.007a17f0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808141400.JAA11527@proteus.imagiware.com> Chuck wrote: >Wrong. Conscience is something created by social conditioning for the purpose >of making the individual fit in with their society. Other than that it serves >no purpose whatsoever. Then please explain why some young children, being raised in the same household, appear to exhibit different types of conscience. For example, one sibling may show no horror at kicking a small dog, yet another of their siblings would never do such a thing, is very upset at the siblings behavior, and would rather spend time petting the dog rather than kicking it. If conscience is ONLY developed after social conditioning, why the difference between people at very early ages - even with exposure to the same ideas? Or, for that matter, why, if conscience is ONLY developed after social conditioning, do so many adult people have such varying types of conscience? >As to the role of it in other aspects of life, I might point out the example >of a man who had no conscience about killing whatsoever and yet was a very >talented artist, a brilliant writer and attained enlightenment in a single >lifetime, the Japanese Sword Saint Musashi who killed at least 60 men in >single combat and wrote one of the best tactical manuals around. I know nothing about the Japenese Sword Saint Musashi; however, there seems to be a grand difference in thought processes when killing for sake of combat than killing for sake of killing. It sounds as though, from the little stated above, that Saint Musashi only killed during combat - combat, itself, contains a moral foundation. So, his conscience could still have been his guide. Furthermore, when you speak of his "enlightenment" I am curious on just what that means - what do you mean he attained "enlightenment?" >The idea that the universe is responsive to any human value system is an >absurdity and any idea that it would actually care about individual human >behavior is laughable. I agree about the universe being unresponsive to any human value system for the universe is not human. A bull frog is not human and does not concern itself with human morality. Humans are not bull frogs and do not apply the moral laws of bull frogs in judging their behavior. Logical. However, you failed to address how ONLY the intellect is the best way. You speak of how the "creation" of a conscience serves only to keep people in control; however, in what way would adhering only to the intellect prevent that same danger? Since we are all born with differing intellects, including mental retardation and other "non-efficent" types of brain function, how would valuing only the intellect ensure complete freedom for humanity? Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 20:05:55 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:51:55 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: Masters -- and the INNER MASTER in each Human Being Message-ID: <007d01bdc7e3$a83b3cc0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 14th 1998 Dear Mike: When we translate our intuitions into the language of passion and desire, they are debased. But fortunately for us, there is in every "lower Manas" (the condition of our minds where they are linked closely to Kama -- see KEY TO THEOSOPHY) that aspect that is linked through the Sutratma (or antaskarana) to the Permanent and the Real SELF -- THE HIGHER SELF. We could have no intuitions, no aspirations, no sense of unselfishness or of compassion and generosity unless: a) these were universal and powerful facts in Nature, and b) we were capable of apprehending them and holding them separate from the vileness of our passional natures, which tend to make selfish any information or power of a spiritual nature that we may acquire. In the BHAGAVAD GITA Krishna makes this plain to Arjuna in many places. Perhaps the most important declaration to be found there is the one in which he (speaking as the HIGHER SELF) states that He is the Ego seated in the hearts of all beings. [ Chapter 10, p. 103 top in Judge's rendition ] The faculty of BUDDHI, (made active in a personage such as Gautama the Buddha, born, prince of Kapilavastu) is a universal repository of all events in Nature. It (BUDDHI) is in fact what is called Akasa -- or the 7th aspect of the Astral Light -- the Divine Light of WISDOM -- a thorough knowledge of Karma and all the causes of our present existence. For, Karma envelops all of us and in fact unites the whole Universe -- it is represented by the idea of Universal Brotherhood as a dynamic and inescapable fact. That is what Theosophy makes plain, as I see and read it. How otherwise, could the personal man apprehend the wisdom that which springs from the Universal Man ? And we may say that the Masters are one with that UNIVERSAL MAN. We are potentially so. The process of reincarnation brings us ever back into contact with the wisdom that we met in previous lives and gives us an opportunity of again seeking to know and to improve our understanding of it. It is the study of the whole of nature, and that study can only be prosecuted through our own selves as embodied but divinely conscious (if we so desire) selves. People speak of meditation and of initiation and also of acquiring knowledge and using powers or discovering the "chakras," or of using the power called "Kundalini" ... and so forth and they have not a clue as to where these things are. Many hope they will find a "Guru" who will instruct them, and are ready to pay large sums and devote many months or years to untested and unproven systems for which claims are made, either individual or factual, but usually undemonstrable. Theosophy states that all these things are aspects of the divine nature alluded to by those who have learned about them by studying their own capabilities. If anyone truly desires to find out the beginnings of this road to self-study, they can pick up Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. (Try and get a copy of that which Mr. Judge translated for us to use.) Open and see if it can be understood. The directions are quite plain. But who believes them ? Those that seek wisdom and powers and perhaps think that reliance on the claims of a "guru" will help, have forgotten, or perhaps they do not know that they are interiorly a Divine Being. Once this idea is grasped, once that one is able to realize that the SPIRITUAL aspect of Universal Nature is everywhere without exception, they have to grant to its all-pervasiveness AND its presence in THEMSELVES. If you look into the SECRET DOCTRINE Vol. I, pp. 570-575 you will get an idea of what Theosophy teaches in this regard. There is more to be found in Vol. 2 pp. 78 to 82, and II 246. If one turns to (Vol. 2 ) pp 93 to 96, 102 - 103, Vol. I -- 274 to 278 one begins to get an idea of the importance and vastness of this subject and fact. Have fun in this search and best wishes, Dallas > Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 10:41 AM > From: "Mike Perala" > Subject: Re: ECP Masters >ow >> >> From: "Dallas TenBroeck" >> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:20:34 -0700 >> Subject: Re: ECP Masters >> >> Aug 12th 1998 >> >> Dear Mike: >> >> Surely reading what is attributed to a "Maha Chohan 82" would make anyone >> wonder about the sanity of those transmitting such things. Makes no sense >> as far as I can see it. So who is being duped ? > >We all are!! 8) > > >> If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a nowhere >> land. >> >> Of course this is IMHO entirely. >> >> Theosophy as I see and learned it from HPB always makes sense and appeals to >> the highest powers of thought and intuition in us. It has nothing to do >> with our personal situations. >> > >But 'highest powers of thought and intuition', if we use them, always >reflect to our personal situations, of course. > > >Mika Perala >Finland > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 20:07:57 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:24:30 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <007e01bdc7e3$a9941600$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 14th 1998 Dear Bjorn: Allow me to interject some explanations to your comments below Are any statements made by anyone more valuable or authoritative if they are subscribed with a Name that seems to lend them that authority ? Or, does the inherent reasonableness of any statement make it valuable ? Does it open our mental doors to some deeper understanding of what we already have learned or studied ? I am not impressed by authorities, unless they offer some insight and explain it in relation to the structure of Theosophy already known to me. To me, Theosophy is a knowledge thing, and not a belief thing. I do not wish to rely on the views of others, but do consider all comers and see if they are valuable in and of themselves. Thanks Dallas > Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 1:37 PM > From: "Bjorn Roxendal" > Subject: Re: ECP Masters >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: >> >> Surely reading what is attributed to a "Maha Chohan 82" would make anyone >> wonder about the sanity of those transmitting such things. Makes no sense >> as far as I can see it. > >It makes plain simple common sense to me. In the passage quoted below it is >simply stated that "we" (people of this generation, in the western civilization) >are subject to influences that tend to dissipate the life force ("light" or >"kundalini"). Some of those influences are listed: nicotine, alcohol, >self-abuse, rock music and drugs. They are declared to be unhealthy, producing >"death" rather than life. We are urged to wean ourselves from addiction to these >elements of our civilization, even though it will require the passing through >some witdrawal symptoms. > >So, Dallas, please explain why statemets such as these do not make any sense and >why they would indicate questionable sanity on the part of its transmitter. =============================================== Dallas: The use of an appelation such as "Maha Chohan 82" is gratuitous and an insult to the condition and functions of a "Maha Chohan." That is my first objection. Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does. That being the case the use of the designation to lend power to otherwise valuable statements seems to me to be a grave fault. Yes, in the study of Theosophy one does come across the meaning of "Maha Chohan" and one is given an idea of the work and function of such a great and Wise Being. To me it is not wise to bandy about such designations as the karma of misuse is grave. So I object to anything so attributed, realizing that it stems from the psychic rather than from the spritual planes. A "spiritual" communication when deserved relates to some reasonable and logical function of which the recipient is already well aware and can fit the added information into what he already knows. Further such messages are usually strictly private and are not to be broadcast unless such is ordered as part of the message. See the MAHATMA LETTERS for these conditions and restrictions. I do not question the wisdom of statements which on their own and of their own rasonableness show a valuable trend. Compare those statemens with those of the writers of the MAHATMA LETTERS and you will exactly what I mean. ======================================== >> If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a nowhere >> land. > >Then, please, explain also what is, in your opinion, so very "untheosophic" >about these statements. ========================================= DALLAS : Persoanlly I have no particular fault with the statements but the reason WHY does not seem to be given nor any link to karma offered. The situation described is one that we all sense and does not need any special emphasis that I can see. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- > >> Of course this is IMHO entirely. > >Yes, of course - entirely in YVHO :) > >> Theosophy as I see and learned it from HPB always makes sense and appeals to >> the highest powers of thought and intuition in us. It has nothing to do >> with our personal situations. > >This last statement must be a mistake? You claim that theosophy has nothing to >do with our personal situation? Such as what is good, what is bad for us etc? I >am sure I could give you hundreds of references from HPB to those kinds of >statements. > ============================================ DALLAS: Misunderstanding of what I meant to say. It is that: our intuitions and spiritual communications from the HIGHER SELF, being universal in scope have little to do with our personal situations -- limited by our focus on personal desire. External "letters" or "messages" usually convey some necessary and important statements and are not redundant. Look at the table in KEY to the 7 prnciples in Man and ask yourself: is Kama related to Buddhi ? and if so, how. What is the reltion of akasa to the Astral Light ? What is the relation if any of intuition and spiritual aspiration to any of our personal desires and inclinations. I do not mean that we are incapable of intuition but rather (as I say in another positng) our consciousness bridges the gap and if we desire to improve our own natures we control the personality and our desires and seek to employ universal and impesonal IDEALS. That is all I mean. Theosophical psychology has to be grasped, and what HPB teaches in the KEY does help. [ see in the KEY pp. 91-2, 135-6, 195-6 ] Hope that this proves to be of some help in explaining what I am trying to say. Dal ===================================== >Bjorn > >PS ("82" was put there as a reference to the year this was recorded) > >> >> >> >> > Why do you think, O sons of God upon earth, that you sense the >> tiredness and the fatigue in your own bodies when you ought to be young, >> youthful, and virile? Why, this generation is experiencing the very stealing >> of the light, as though robbers would break in and leave no trace of their >> coming or of their going. >> >> > These fallen angels, by deliberate design, have lusted after your >> light! They have come for you! They pipe their tunes and you dance. >> >> > Shame on you! >> >> > Light-bearers from the sun, I call you home! I rebuke you, I warn >> you, and I say: Leave them! Leave them all! For you have no part with them. >> And if you tarry, you enter unmistakably the death coil. >> >> > Death is an addiction on earth in all of its forms! It becomes >> the binding habit of nicotine or alcohol or self-abuse or rock or drugs. >> Every addiction has its withdrawal syndrome, its crisis. You must be willing >> to withstand the inconvenience and the discomfort. >> >> Maha Chohan 82 >> > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 14 20:20:03 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:20:41 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Approaching adepts Message-ID: <007c01bdc7e3$a5742d80$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 14th 1998 Dear Mike: Agreed -- there are plenty of areas of expertise everywhere. As one suggests, there are books to read and study. And if one desires to study philosophy, mathematics, logic, Theosophy, algebra, painting ... there are enough written guides to satisfy one for a long time. Remains one additional means of attaining insights and making sure that one is thinking correctly. That is a forum at which one can place one's ideas in front of others and ask if they are valid. Mutual consideration and study -- somewhat what this theos-talk work resembles. The T S and the ULT for example provide such forums with regularly recurring programs -- talks, the study of texts, etc... -- and in addition they have made themselves responsible for the publishing of books that deal with Theosophy. Pre-eminently among these are those books of H.P.Blavatsky around whose teachings and presence the original T S was established in 1875. If you ask what ULT means it is THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS. It is dedicated to the spreading broadcast of the teachings of Theosophy as recorded in the writings of H.P.Blavatsky and Wm. Q. JUDGE. That makes it appear as though it was very one pointed. But it has done this deliberately because if one learns Theosophy from the Masters through HPB and her close pupil Wm. Q. Judge, one will have less trouble in grasping the interlocking and cooperative aspects of that which Theosophy represents -- namely, facts in nature. Theosophy claims to be the accumulated wisdom of the ages and that it has and is being studied by Adepts and their students. [ SD I 272-3 ] If that is true, then the laws and operations of Nature have been noted and recorded, checked and reverified many times. We are in the process of repeating this right now as we go along in our talks, studies and considerations. It is a search for the truths which are innate in Nature already, but which we are still unaware of. I do not see what it matters whether those who are the Adepts (or the Mahatmas, as some name them -- those Great of Soul who have preceded us in our work ) live visibly in front of us or invisibly, doing what work is their responsibility. It is conceivable if they were well known that they would be pestered and they would be unable to do the work that they have to do. In self-defense they remain anonymous. If one reads HPB's letters one can see how she was "pestered" from time to time with inconsequential things. One might even say that a neglect of her writings today is indicative of the lack of sincerity that those who carelessly approach Theosophy show. They expect wisdom and knowledge to descend on them by some miraculous process perhaps, and Masters to appear for their edification simply because they have paused in their lives to say they were curious. But Nature does not work that way, ever. No one can approach the Masters unless they have worked to learn what they teach. In other words all of us have to spend real time and effort to learn what HPB taught. Is this dogmatism ? Is this fanaticism ? Or is this only a clear statement of fact ? Is Einstein's mathematical philosophy his, or someone else's ? If we desire to find out what Einstein taught do we go to his commentators and biographers or to his published papers ? So it is with Theosophy and HPB. Someone recently suggested that proofs of their work and existence are to seen in the books on Theosophy that were written for (and by) Them by their Agent HPB. for those who go deeper, there is THE MAHATMA LETTERS which can be consulted along with the S D and ISIS UNVEILED, the VOICE, and the KEY. If we desire to know what Theosophy teaches and deals with, we will have to look at those with attention, just as we would look at textbooks if we desired to find out and learn any of the great academic disciplines. The main difference as I see it between Theosophy and those academic disciplines is that it acts like the mortar in stone-work -- it fills the interstices and shows how each discipline fits into and around the others, so that there is a WHOLE. In a way theosophy is a report on the binding qualities of Nature. It is always a study in karma. Karma brings the Universes into manifestation and puts them to sleep. And all the uncountable billions of cooperative beings that use the universes for their learning classes pass from activity to rest and then resume their work as those Universes sleep or waken to work. Time is not a factor, as the Consciousness and the individual Intelligence is undying and immortal. So it is with us if we will only look closely at the logic of our being. Those who have studied the KEY TO THEOSOPHY -- a summation of theosophical doctrines -- find that most of the subjects asked about are answered, as for instance the question of the Mahatmas and the Adepts -- see pp. 286 - 301 in the KEY. Mr. W. Q. Judge, HPB's closest pupil wrote the OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, and you will find that the first chapter there deals with the subject of the Adepts and those members of the Human race who have preceded us in this pursuit and study of Theosophy. Both books I believe deal successfully with this subject. In addition there are innumerable references in original Theosophical article literature to Their being, and their work. In TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, a book that HPB edited and which recorded several studies in the SECRET DOCTRINE she conducted after its publication, you will find that she lays stress on the fact that interior to each of us is the HIGHER SELF [ see pp. 66 - 76 ]. In terms of the 7 Principles of man, these are the Divine Monad and consist of the eternal Unity -- a triad -- consisting of ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS [ or spirit, wisdom and the higher mind ]. It is this Triad which is the potential Adept in each one of us. When we succeed in contacting It, within, we will see the Adepts everywhere in their work as we will have achieved the right to enter their brotherhood and work harmoniously with nature in one or other of its many departments. And we will not be asking: Where are they ? We will know. Our embodied mind, "Lower-Manas" is the reflection so to say within the purview of the physical brain of this personality of ours of these divine potentials. It is, therefore the Lower Mind, or the embodied brain-mind that is ours and which we use consciously and deliberately when we are awake, that is the present "pupil." What then do we find: We live in a body concerning which we know little if anything. We are like a tenant and much is done for us, breathing, blood circulation, digestion, excretion, etc... and we are not even very grateful for those services, usually. We treat it as our slave. And we often abuse it. Our minds are usually fully influenced by our desire and emotional principle [Kama]. We are vastly absorbed in our ambitions, hopes, ignorances, and laziness -- a whole range of activities that are rarely well thought out. consequently the Lower Mind is confused, ignorant and uncertain. But from time to time it is aware of aspirations. However, when we do become aware of an Ideal and Superior set of aspirations, inclinations to nobility to unselfishness and to compassion; the desire to learn and to know, to acquire power and to apply it -- these we recognize as some of the concepts that dimly emerge from the core of our being. Often w wonder about them as they do not seem to benefit the personality immediately or directly. It is these that we study and seek to learn about in Theosophy. The ensuing progress of the embodied mind represents all the panorama of conditions and psychological states we know of, or have heard of, and then plenty more we are still unaware of. How do we make this welter of impinging feelings, ideas, concepts, hopes and desires into something reasonable, organized and in fact make of it a tool that leads to our improvement as individuals ? How do we gain control ? That is what Theosophy deals with, and in so doing it draws our attention to the problems we face, to our existing condition, to our potentials, and to our deficiencies As I see it, we have all the potencies of the Universe within grasp of our understanding. The Adepts represent to us what Professors represent to the freshman who enters college. Some think that they deserve to be approached and recognized -- why ? The Adepts do not what to acquire a bunch of "followers." They are not physical plane, pretend gurus, who desire money or power from their dupes. they are engaged in the work of the world. If we desire to be of assistance they welcome us. but for curiosity they have no time to waste. They promulgate the philosophy and leave it to us to make the efforts to learn and apply it. They go on with their work. They set forth the philosophy and give the means and the disciplines we are to impose on ourselves for attaining progress. If and when we pass on to the stage of real and sincere students, and our karma permits such a conscious approach, then they will manifest. Until such a time, we have their assurance that they, working on the inner planes of nature are sensitive to every impulse of a kind that is in harmony with nature's purposes. Are we going to generate such impulses ? Are we going to assist however humbly in their work ? Each answers for themselves. In other words, if our motives are at all selfish we alone are the one who raise the barriers of distance and of a different line of interest. To attract Their attention we have to work as they do: unselfishly, for the rest of humanity, and for the Universe. Are we ready to do this ? Please, these are only a few considerations on this wonderful subject, and I am sure that most of those are well known to you, therefore I set them out so as to make sure that we are thinking along similar lines -- but if you think I am off base somewhere, do not hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 4:50 AM > From: "Mike Perala" > Subject: Approaching adepts >Jerr wrote: >> >> They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not >> physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the >> current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to >> approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather >> than try to find any external Teacher. > >If I want to study music, and I want to find a best possible teacher, an >'adept' of his/her own art, I look and can find him/her in the physical >plane. Same goes with all the other 'arts'. But this is not true for >spirituality, I believe this is what you are saying? > >And if there are these 'real adepts' only in inner planes, do we >personally need them? I am sure there are lot of people here 'on earth' >that we can learn from. > > >mika Perala > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 01:32:25 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:17:38 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Bjorn and EC Prophet Message-ID: <35D52802.56B318AF@usa.net> References: <199808141946.OAA04951@proteus.imagiware.com> <35D4AFB6.AA4BB921@usa.net> <35D4D2A0.1EDD@azstarnet.com> Caldwell/Graye wrote: > > Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > > > Yes, and each person will have his own experience and thus "proof" unto himself, > > either way. As for me, I first heard some dictations given through ECP in 1976, > > in Sweden. I didn't know anything about ECP or her organization at the time, and > > I didn't even understand English well enough to follow what was being said on > > the tape! I woud say that I was not biased in any direction as far as the > > authentiticity of this phenomenon. My experience was undeniable, however. Upon > > listening to one of these dications I was quickly drawn up in an "alternative > > state of consciousness". Prior to this I had had tangible and intense experience > > of higher states through medition, which was my frame of reference at the time. > > I found that the sphere of awareness I entered into through the dictations > > outdid my meditation experiences by many light years. That's what convinced me. > > Bjorn, please consider the following: > Is it possible that your "alternative state of consciousness" had > nothing to do with the validity/nonvalidity of EC Prophet's "dictation"? I have to answer "no" to that. I had plenty of previous experience of expanded states of consciousness, but the "manifestation" that accompanied the dictations was different and transcended those experiences. It was also repeatable and hardly a product of expectations, since I didn't know what to expect, if anything. > Or is it even possible that your experience was somehow "deceptive". Yes. In the name of humility and acceptance of my own fallability I must admit that this is entirely possible. I have had many strong spiritual experiences and those I have had in conjunction with ECP's dictations have the most convincing quality of "reality" of them all. There have often been an infusing of light/energy/consciousness in my being, even quite physically, that no other practices or experiences have parallelled. But still, all of this may be deceptive in the sense that there could be higher experiences and more direct mnifestations of spiritual "truth" and "light" etc. available. So I keep my eyes open to see if anything "better" crosses my path. > Or take another example. Your own EC Prophet channeled "Kuthumi" > concerning Alice Bailey: > " Thus I > expose to you the false teachings subtly woven into the work of Alice > Bailey, whose failure to surrender totally rendered her unfit as an > instrument of the Tibetan Master.” > Now if we ASSUME this is really "Kuthumi" giving the messsage to Ms. > Prophet, and further assume that what is said about Alice Bailey is > "gospel truth", how do we explain the experiences of many serious, > longtime Bailey students who have ALSO had profound spiritual and > mystical experiences? Some have told me that it was their involvement > with a true messenger (Bailey) and the genuine writings of DK/Bailey, > etc. which caused their profound experiences. How is this possible if > what "Kuthumi" (via Prophet) says is really true? Are their "spiritual > experiences" deceptive while yours is not? They may or may not be. It is not for me to tell. I certainly believe that there is enough "truth" in A Bailey's teachings for a sincere student to be able to make contact with the aura and spiritual presene of the master through them. And my guess is that Kuthumi agrees. > If your spiritual experiences > validate Prophet's claims why can't the Bailey students' spiritual > experiences also be proof of the validity of Bailey's claims? My spiritual experiences are not enough to validate ECP's claims, but they are what I have. As Eldon was inferring (I think), as long as this is the most convincing experience I have of a spiritual nature, you can't expect me to deny it. But, one point should be made, the undeniable experience of spiritual power, light, consciousness, transformation, etc that I have in connections with the ECP activity, does NOT validate all of ECP's claims. I think she makes mistakes of judgment, perception, interpretation etc, like the rest of us. I can not accept everything she says on the ground that I believe that she is conveying spiritual "reality". > I'm not trying to diss your "inner experiences" but the above examples > could be multiplied by the scores. If we truly seek truth (which might > be uncomfortable to our present beliefs), then shouldn't we ask such > difficult questions and look for the true answers even if the truth > might be other than what we desire? Certainly. I am not, and am not going to be, a mindless follower. On the contrary, I prefer some detachment and independent thinking. The funny thing is, IMO, that in these theosophical circles people like me are often considered as being less endowed with faculties of spiritual sanity than the rest of you. This both amuses and saddens me. Bjorn From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 03:22:38 1998 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 20:48:51 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D50523.19A@dlc.fi> References: <199808132104.QAA23076@proteus.imagiware.com> Bjorn wrote: > > > I think the "poetic language" is intentional and an integral part of the > > > message. > > > > What purpose does this 'intent' serve? > > Yes, why are people using poetic language at all? Why do people enjoy poetry? > > Your answer is probabley as good as mine. Personally I think that our feeling > nature, and intuitional faculties, often respond to poetic language in a way > that purely intellectual discourse can not accomplish. > OK, I see. I guess it`s not my kind of poetry then. Somehow, I find it inappropriate (or it makes it sound a bit banal ) when this kind of straight 'teaching'kind of text is expressed this way. My ears like it more when spiritual poetry is much more veiled, more art-like. Mika Perala P.S. Bjorn, are you Swedish? Or a descent of Swedes? P.S.S. I hope you can understand my sometimes weird expressions. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 07:37:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 00:02:55 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Approaching Adepts Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19980816061511.1dd768f4@mail.iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Bart and Jerry First, sorry about the delay in responding; computer problems and various time demands have kept my writing in the world of intentions. It was good to see you and Jerry S. write something on this question. I agree with Bart in a couple of ways: First, I don't see a being of the stature of an Adept wanting to be approached by people whose primary motivation is self-promotion, ego enhancement or desire for learning just for the sake of learning, etc. With these types, the psycho-spiritual distance would generally be too great for significant interchange to occur anyway, even if physical proximity was reached. However, to a being in whom the Bodhisattva vow or a similar commitment underpins their whole range of intentions, the signs of that same fire kindling in another human would likely catch the Adept's attention and lead them to begin to relate in ways that foster it. We are perhaps used to thinking of aspirants feeling drawn to the distant Teacher figure, but the pull can work the other way too when conditions are right. It has to, given the overriding intentions of the Adept, as indicated in the following quotes from The Mahatma Letters: I can come nearer to you, but you must draw me by a purified heart and a gradually developing will. Like the needle the adept follows his attractions. Letter #47 (Chronological version), #45 (old 3rd Ed'n) Every step made by one in our direction will force us to make one toward him. But it is not by going to Ladakh that one shall find us, as Mr Lane-Fox imagines. Letter #136 (Chronological version), #65 (old) , near the end. As for public personal contact, well, I agree that that bridge seemed to be pretty well burnt in those early days as far as theosophical Adepts writing letters were concerned. As for now, it's probably unnecessary. I believe there are signs that the Teacher spirit, spiritual energy (call it what you will) is welling up more within people, and that a good number are becoming more sensitive inwardly. Put the two together .... The Teacher spirit, as I've called it, certainly can be touched or found through books, I agree, Jerry - and also in all sorts of areas of life including the people we meet and live with, IMO, if we will just be open to it. And that actually leads on to why it's a serious issue facing the organizational T.S. It is important to consider it unless one believes that *all* those who find affinity and useful guidance in any other sources such as ECP and the dozens of other purported sources of teaching are stupid, misguided etc etc. We have seen through history, of course, where that kind of thinking can lead .... Murray Murray Stentiford wrote: >> The question of whether - and if so, how - the Adepts can be approached >> today is one of the most serious issues facing the organizational T.S. >> today. Bart replied: > I thought the Adepts made it clear that they do not wish to be >approached, and had no intention of making public personal contact with >anybody else. Of course, they also said that they were not the only >group of Adepts... Jerry replied to the same thing: >They can be approached on the astral or mental planes, but not >physically, IMHO. Today, books often serve as gurus. I think the >current official position in the TSs is that that we should try to >approach our own inner Adept (divine spark within, etc) rather >than try to find any external Teacher. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 07:52:37 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 07:37:32 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Knowledge/Belief Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980815073732.0099c100@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <007e01bdc7e3$a9941600$03e78ccc@nwc.net> At 05:24 PM 8/14/1998 -0700, Dallas wrote: >To me, Theosophy is a knowledge thing, and not a belief thing. I do not >wish to rely on the views of others, but do consider all comers and see if >they are valuable in and of themselves. > Well said Dallas! If Theosophy is a belief thing, I would have gone looking for something else long time ago. In exposing myself to theosophy, one of the most valuable result has been to help me keep an open mind and look at any and all views and ideas presented from whatever source it comes from. Also many will find it very difficult to deal with people with open mindedness since no one including themselves could predict the response to any set of information and facts. Since life itself in most cases unpredictable, such a response seems to be a very natural thing. mkr From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 08:02:28 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 07:39:13 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Approaching adepts Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980815073913.0099aa40@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <007c01bdc7e3$a5742d80$03e78ccc@nwc.net> At 11:20 AM 8/14/1998 -0700, Dallas wrote: >I do not see what it matters whether those who are the Adepts (or the >Mahatmas, as some name them -- those Great of Soul who have preceded us in >our work ) live visibly in front of us or invisibly, doing what work is >their responsibility. It is conceivable if they were well known that they >would be pestered and they would be unable to do the work that they have to >do. In self-defense they remain anonymous. If one reads HPB's letters one >can see how she was "pestered" from time to time with inconsequential >things. I think HPB was pestered much more than what she has disclosed. One wonders the level of pestering that would result if any Adept's whereabouts is known. His/her phone will be ringing off the hook all the time!!!! >In other words, if our motives are at all selfish we alone are the one who >raise the barriers of distance and of a different line of interest. To >attract Their attention we have to work as they do: unselfishly, for the >rest of humanity, and for the Universe. Are we ready to do this ? > I think that if we do our duty in helping the Humanity in any way we can, unselfishly, we will get what we deserve, nothing more and nothing less. If any of the Adepts can find that we can be of use in any endeavor of helping Humanity, surely we will be made use of whether we are aware of it or not. mkr From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 09:07:37 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:28:51 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: #364 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: <005a01bdc855$ba6e2d40$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 15th 1998 Dallas offers: As mankind lives in the Universe and appears to be the only entity type which concerns itself over its/his existence and usage, Would it no be reasonable to think that there is an intimate connection at all times between them ? If some desire "powers" which are part of the secret side of Nature/ (the Universe) then one recognizes that link. What other than thought links Spirit and Matter as the polar opposites ? If one has studied the SECRET DOCTRINE Vol. 1, pp. 1 to 300 these relationships are persuasively described. Are we not interested in what Theosophy teaches ? Dallas > Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 11:06 AM > From: "Govert Schuller > Subject: Re: Re: #364 (sentiment vs. intellect) >Chuck wrote: > >>The idea that the universe is responsive to any human value >system is an >>absurdity and any idea that it would actually care about >individual human >>behavior is laughable. > > >Dear Chuck, maybe the universe gave up on you, you unrepentant >heretic. Meanwhile it conspires to help anybody who is serious >about its reason for being to fulfill that. > >Govert > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 09:13:50 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 07:03:43 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Up the creek Message-ID: <005f01bdc855$c0288be0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 15th 1998 Dear Kym: Thanks for your comments. May I proceed ? Your questions are largely answered. when you seem to desire some degree of understanding of what theosophy states, in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. There is a good INDEX for that book and if it is used some of the difficulties in understanding Theosophical teaching vanish. I do not mean to "ignore" your questions, only to save some time and not just repeat what is already available there. If you also read the rest of the daily postings you will have noticed that the question of Masters and their existence has been well described and debated. In replying I try to take into account all that is floating about that seems relevant. The difference between the "Individuality" and the personality" ought o be investigated and studied from the theosophical point of view of psychology to grasp what is meant in regard to Masters. In THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY and elsewhere in her Articles and the SECRET DOCTRINE HPB has dealt with the subject. Have you found time to look into what is there ? With best wishes to you, Dallas > Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 4:41 PM > From: "Kym Smith" > Subject: Up the creek >Dallas wrote: > >>All your questions about deserving or non-deserving can only be answered >>interiorly, if you question your own motives, knowledge and purpose for such >>a contact. > >Yet, again, you have ignored my questions to you. Well, no matter - I >expected such - however, I doubt I will find the answer to where I used >"barnyard terms" or how Dallas himself thinks regarding his own >extra-responsibility in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. Is there a page in THE KEY >TO THEOSOPHY that talks about you specifically and one that speaks of Kym's >horrifying terminology? Odd, I don't recall there being any. > >Also, it is HPB, and not me, who INSISTED the "Masters" were real, walking, >talking, human beings. So, for a person (and I am not one of them) to wish >for a physical visit from the "Masters" has had the seed of such a wish >planted in them from HPB. > >Oh, and, the "Masters" still visited HPB even though she smoked, cursed, >and engaged in some other indulgences, such as over-eating. Why she >married, then never foogie-foogied with her husbands (she had more than >one, it is said) is a mystery. > >But the point is: The "Masters" seem to visit those who do NOT adhere very >strictly to what is supposed to make one in the physical sense, according >to some folks on this list, trucking down the path of "spirituality." > >Which means: NO ONE can really claim any knowledge as to whom a "Master" >would choose to dine with since none of us can ever know what is in >someone's heart. > >Which means: At this point, we are all in the running for such a visit - >or we are all in the same boat. Well, hot dog! Grab a paddle, Dallas, and >have a seat - you can sit next to me if you want, but I get the cushion >since you've been so liverish. > > >Kym > > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 09:20:42 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:54:07 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <005e01bdc855$be296080$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 15th 1998 Dear Jerry: It seems clear that some comments on both sides are not melding. Where does HPB describe any "Abyss ?" In several places HPB indicates that all the effort done on this evolutionary side of manifestation (call it Mayavic if you will, since materially it is indeed not "permanent") is totally lost at the end of Manvantara ? [ Particularly this is brought out in her brief article ISIS UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA -- "Theosophist" January 1886; ULT HPB ARTICLES III- 265 ] =================================== Interjection Some more details I found are: BCW IV 422 footnote by HPB BCW VI 248-9 (from THEOSOPHIST V p. 246) ATMA the "One witness" SD I 570-1 Universal Self-consciousness SD I 335 HPB LETTERS to APS -- diagram p. 247 Best wishes, Dallas ============================ On the contrary I have found at least two references that state that Spiritually the work done by the Reincarnating Ego during every Manvantara is sublimated and transferred to the next Manvantara when it re-emerges. Now this sounds very close to the concept of eternity and immortality for some part of our natures (perhaps the highest), as well as the inner aspect of all other beings (not just mankind alone). There are many who believe that this life in this Personality is the only life we will ever live, and they act accordingly. Are they wrong, or just mistaken, because the effort to carry thought out of the personal into the Individual has not yet been mastered ? NO according to their beliefs. What do we know that they don't ? The only tool we employ for this inner conviction of continuity is the idea of Egoity -- of a continuing Self (a "Spiritual Ahankara ?") which is the animus the energizer within. And we endow it mentally with the power to survive death. Using this as one of the arguments, the structure that we may construct as a demonstration of reincarnation is supplemented from the records of the Adepts who as CONSCIOUS BEINGS have survived such changes and have witnessed the changes that every human goes through after the death of this personality. At least that is how I see it. HPB speaks to this point in detail in the KEY. I used the term "thought men" to indicate an individual who thinks and uses the mind. If we "use the mind" then the mind is a tool of the Real Man. You speak of rising above ratiocination, logic, etc., and the use of the mind -- perhaps this is intuition ? I look at the "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali," which seem to throw the most comprehensive light on the functions of the mind and the Self that uses it. It appears there that the various steps of self-discipline are quite explicit. As to a description of the relative functions and faculties of ATMA, BUDDHI, MANAS -- I have used the KEY as a base to study these and as well various statements found in the SD ( Vol. I 570-575) as an example. The positions, values and conditions of these faculties (principles) above or below some "Abyss" is not understood. As I say above: where does HPB speak of an "Abyss ?" Why should there be one in a spherical UNIVERSE that has no limits of extension ? Is this concept extra-Universal ? If so ??????? I don't get it. [ Do you mean a change of state of consciousness? If such, then who or what in us experiences it ? and, if it is experienced or conceived of, then the Experiencer is uninfluenced by it. Is this a concept raised by the "personality" alone ? ] My guess is that some writer has advanced this idea in extension of what HPB first taught and it has caught the fancy of some students. But what is the gap and the relationship with HPB's teachings ? I wonder if it is the gap between the permanent INDIVIDUALITY (ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS) and the Personality (Lower Manas - Kama - Astral Man ) ? I can understand what you say when you state that you have faced the ATMA directly. Also it is true that HPB in TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (pp,. 66- 67 ) speaks of the relations between the HIGHER SELF Atma-Buddhi) and the embodied self ( the Lower Manas and Kama conjoined -- that which is awake on this plane of living). As you say our understanding of what Theosophy teaches may seem to be at variance, and we may have approached it by different paths and therefore use terms that either of us are not completely familiar with -- so we agree in some things and seem to disagree in others, but as I see it, we both profit from the encounter, and I can certainly see that there are further depths to be plumbed for me. Thanks for your consideration. Best wishes as always, Dallas > Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 5:25 PM > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >>DALLAS: According to what I understand, the "Masters" (or Mahatmas) exist >>permenently on the "inner planes" of the whole Universe, namely the three >>transcendent planes delineated in SD I 200. >> > >This is not my understanding except in the sense that there are usually >some of them so existing at any time. There are, in fact, six inner planes. >The three that you refer to are obviously the astral, mental, and casual >which exist below the Abyss and which contain HPB's 7 Globes. >I don't know what you mean by "transcendent" but our emotions are >on the astral right now, and our thoughts are on the mental right now. ========================================= DALLAS I dont think the number of "planes" is very relevant, unless we use them consciously and without any loss of awareness. There may be an "abyss" which the personality cannot cross at present, because it is not refined or attuned to such a transfer. Yet if there is consciousness "on the other side" something that is both at home in the "Personality" and the "Individuality" bridges that gap and is aware of it -- perhaps only theoretically, and in some cases, actually. =============================================== > >>In Man's 7-fold nature they correspond to ATMA, BUDDI, MANAS. > >I can't see how these three highest principles are on the three lowest >inner planes. Atma is above the Abyss, Buddhi is on the causal, >and manas or our thinking mind is on the mental plane. ===================================== But if you study KEY you find MANAS is dual. Depending on the nature of the things thought about, Manas may be HIGHER (spiritual) or LOWER (physical, material and personal). ==================================== > > >> In the SD HPB >>states several times that these are immortal principles, and they constitue >>the Real Man. > >They are immortal and eternal in the sense that they will last so long as >our manvantara lasts, but they are not eternal in the sense of never >ever having an end. All three exist in space-time and thus in maya. They >are, in short, mayavic. ============================================ SEE MY EARLIER COMMENT ================================== > >Here, on Earth, our personalities are reflections, obscure, >>blurred, uncertain as far as our present consciousness when we are awake, >is >>concerned. You and othes may say I am in error in this, but if we think >>carefully about the Theosophical statements that relate to Consciousness >>this may become apparent. >> > >I do believe that I read something about the personality being a >pale reflection of the individuality. Is this what you mean? (sorry, >I am letting sarcasm get the best of me here, and I should be >above that sort of stuff). Agreed. > > >>We are therefore "transparent" to the perception of an Adept (Mahatma) who >>would only "contact" us as personalities if we had some value in our work, >>for humanity. This to me is made quite plain in the case of Sinnett (as an >>example) and can be readily seen if we read MAHATMA LETTERS and LETTERS >FROM HPB TO AP SINNETT. >> > >While our bodies and emotions are transparent, they do, I think, see into >our thoughts and ideas. Contact with such is often done during dreams >which we may or may not recall when we wake. =========================== dallas agreed ============================= > >>To our selves, our pesonality. and all its memories and doings and motives >>(as an embodied mind that uses a physical and an astral brain) IN THIS LIFE >>are important. >> > >Of course they are. > > >>But, as I understnd it, it is only when we make a strong effort to raise >>ourselves as thought-men out of the personality and its comfortable >>limitations. that we are able by strong effort attain to some of the >>perceptions of the REal Man -- the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS. >> > >I think you are confused here, or at least I am not reading you. What are >"thought-men?" The strong effort that we make is to raise our >consciousness beyond thought altogether. This is equivalent to >rising above the mental plane. We already know what our manas is. >Most of us already know what our buddhi is (intuition). Few know the >atma or spirit, but this is because it exists above the Abyss and we >have to cross that obstacle in order to confront our atma or spiritual >self. >========================================== I mean as thinking beings we are "thought-men". As emotional beings (our mind control is overcome by desire or passion) we are "emotional-men." etc... depending on the "Principle" that currently dominates the prsonality. Yet, above and beyond both of these is the PERCEIVER whichis unaffected by the perceptions. ================================ >>For this reason Theosophy says (as I understand it) that we are >>"IMMORTALS" -- in that root essence, from which our present "Personality" >>derives its being. >> > >Our present personality is on the mental and astral planes. Our >Reincarnating >Ego is on the causal plane, and to see it directly we have to rise above the >mental plane to the causal--the equivalent of rising above our thinking >processes (and yes, it can be done. The result is called samadhi). > > >>We all know that one thing is certain: this Personality will presently >>"die" and be disssolved. Into what ? What happens ? Religions try to >>grapple with this, and if one studies many of those one encounters at their >>core the same set of root or core ideas. >> > >Like the physical body, it disintegrates. This is why crossing the Abyss >is so scary--it is nothing less than the death of the ego. BTW, we are >said to have a "little death" in orgasm because the ego looses control >for a few moments. It is said that this is the real reason why some people >are so opposed to sexual acts. > >========================================= Wher does HPB say this ? =========================================== >>In order to be brief, let me say that the tenets of Theosophy apply there, >>and can be seen to lie at those several roots and cores. Hence HPB states >>that Theosophy s the Root and substratum of all the many World Religions. >> > >I don't have any problem in what you are saying in the above paragraph, but >it is very clear to me that your Theosophy is not my Theosophy even though >we both read and study the same HPB. Interesting, no? > ==================================== DALLAS Agreed -- but it just shows how different students have adopted from HPB that ahich they feel comfortable with. Now the fact that there are variances shows each of us that there are areas remaining to be investigated and vealuated. =============================================== > >>But I further add, and in defence of HPB and Theosophy, WE CAN ONLY ASSURE OURSELVES OF THIS IF WE STUDY WHAT HPB WRITES. >> > >We can also be assured of this when we rise above thoughts and face the >Abyss and see the Atma directly. I have done so, which just goes to show how easy it must be. > > >>We may have many ideas, and we may have "made contact" earler that our >>contact with "Theosophy" as HPB recorded it with some or all of these >ideas. >>That does not obviate the fact that Theosophy draws all together and can be >>used to shortcut much of the tedium of research. > > >Personally, I rather like Theosophy, at least in the sense that I understand >it. > >Jerry S. > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 09:22:37 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 07:12:16 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Approaching adepts Message-ID: <007001bdc856$cb022520$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 15th 1998 Dear Doss: Both your postings of today: Thanks -- agreement Some where there has to be a reasonable basis for communications. WE have all approached each other through this channel of talk and exchange so that we can be of mutual benefit to each other, I think. Our queries and comments open minds to other vistas we may have hitherto not yet considered. It is a "fellowship of reconciliation" from that point of view. BTW I had earlier sent you some floppies with some of the collections of quotations on various theosophical topics. have you had the time or opportunity to look at them, or part of them, and evaluate them ? Best wishes, Dallas ================== - From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 09:28:59 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:55:59 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas Message-ID: <005d01bdc855$bb9c4d00$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 15th 1998 Dear Daniel: Thank you for the quotations you offer in defense of what HPB wrote and came to do for us on behalf of the Brotherhood of the Adepts. As you say she and the Adepts have repeatedly stated that They were jointly responsible for the material that was offered to modern students of Theosophy from their stores and libraries. One of the great barriers as I see it is the unwillingness to admit the possibility that resident in each human is an immortal Entity -- a "spark" of the ONE SPIRIT. One wonders why this should be so difficult a point to investigate. Are we, have we, been psychologized by our environment and education into believing that we are only "mortals" ? And where do the powers of our egoity, thinking, willing and determination arise from ? Why are we all so different, and yet so similar in terms of the general make-up of our equipment and tools ? As you say she is very clear as to her sources and the existence of the Adepts. There is still more that can be added to the quotes you offer which can be culled from her LETTERS TO A. P. SINNETT a book edited also by Trevor Barker and published as a companion to MAHATMA LETTERS. In a number of her articles, as also in her answers to queries by students one finds that she undeviatingly attributes to the Adepts the wisdom and knowledge that she offers. It is not the first time that HPB has been accused of concocting Theosophy out of a collation of such information as might have been available scattered through the learned libraries of hundreds of Universities and special Associations (such as the ASIATIC SOCIETY) -- but, has anyone been able to grasp the enormity of such a task, or the fact that to memorize the enormous number of details and quotations so as to bring them on to paper without ready references at hand is in itself a feat. I say: If anyone ventures to criticize HPB and her work, or question the scholarship and wisdom of the Adepts, let those who do this fist write an SD or even an ISIS -- or even a simple article, that demonstrates their ability to be philosophically eclectic and innovative. Then we may bow to their greater ability, and take their criticism to be fair. I say this also in reference to those who from time to time quote more recent "messages" from named 'High Sources.' Let such wisdom as may be inherent, and the necessity of the time and place, show up through those writings and statements. And that is all that we need, not names or authorities. WE can determine ourselves how valuable they are and if they are necessary. Say what one will, if one desires to learn about Theosophy ( I mean its rationale, philosophy, basis and psychology ) HPB has offered us adequate demonstrations and proofs of the actual existence of such information. The KEY TO THEOSOPHY is a relatively short text, and it should not be so expensive as to our valuable time that we do not read and seek to understand it. If we do not study it, then indeed that which we may write may prove to very speculative. Our apparently unwillingness to read and learn about the nature of THEOSOPHY does offer a question: Why is that so ? Who loses?. Who is the worse off as a result ? If these exchanges are to be of mutual benefit, then a similarity of learning would greatly help and shorten such exchanges so that we all would be aiming at a deeper, rather than a more superficial and argumentative type of cooperation. Best wishes to you, as always, Dallas > Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 11:50 AM > From: "Daniel H Caldwell" > Subject: Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas >Re: HPB sides with Kym against Dallas > >Paul, > >In your original post titled "HPB sides with Kym against Dallas" you >wrote: > >>Like Kym, I've felt strong disagreement with Dallas's repeated >> claims to the effect that "without HPB the world would know >> nothing of Theosophy." > >And apparently to show that Dallas' statement was without foundation and >in error you quoted HPB's words from the Preface to Volume I of THE >SECRET DOCTRINE: > >> "These truths are in no sense put forward as a *revelation*; nor >> does the author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, >> now made public for the first time in the world's history. For >> what is contained in this book is to be found scattered >> throughout thousands of volumes of the great Asiatic and early >> European religions, hidden under glyph and symbol, and hitherto >> left unnoticed because of this veil. What is now attempted is to >> gather the oldest tenets together and to make of them one >> harmonious and unbroken whole." > >Then you give your own commentary on HPB's words: > >> The only part of this passage which might possibly support >> Dallas's extravagant claim on HPB's behalf is the phrase >> "hitherto left unnoticed." But in fact these ideas were not >> hitherto entirely unnoticed; HPB was simply the first to >> introduce them to a *vast international* public. She deserves credit for that, >> but *not* for being the first person who ever taught the doctrines >> we know as Theosophy. I find it interesting that she portrays >> herself as *attempting* to "gather together" the oldest tenets and >> "*make* of them" one harmonious and unbroken whole, which seems a >> precise description of what she did. But those who make wild >> claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to >> attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a >> whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a >> silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all >> already. >> > >Notice the last sentence of your commentary: > >>But those who make wild >> claims on her behalf would say that instead she didn't need to >> attempt anything, didn't gather together anything, didn't make a >> whole of them, because she was given the full doctrine on a >> silver platter by a single authoritative source which had it all >> already. > >It would appear that you possibly believed that the just-quoted >statement from HPB also contradicted "those who make WILD claims on her >behalf", e.g., HPB "was given the full [esoteric, occult, theosophical] >doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source which had >it all already." > >MY MAJOR POINT in criticism directed toward your post was that in order >to understand what you had quoted from HPB one would need to read MORE >of the same paragraph. In fact, read the whole paragraph. And I quote >below that full paragraph: > >"These truths are in no sense put forward as a revelation; nor does the >author claim the position of a revealer of mystic lore, now made public >for the first time in the world's history. For what is contained in this >work is to be found scattered throughout thousands of volumes embodying >the scriptures of the great Asiatic and early European religions, hidden >under glyph and symbol, and hitherto left unnoticed because of this >veil. What is now attempted is to gather the oldest tenets together and >to make of them one harmonious and unbroken whole. The sole advantage >which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort >to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial >statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, >supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and >observation. The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been >rendered necessary by the wild and fanciful speculations in which many >Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last >few years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a complete >system of thought from the few facts previously communicated to them." > >Whatever HPB is attempting to communicate in the first part of the >paragraph that you orginally brought forth to refute Dallas, I suggest >that what IMMEDIATELY follows (and was NOT quoted by you) is EXTREMELY >RELEVANT to fully understanding the part that you quoted. Especially >since you then go on and pooh-pooh the alleged claim that HPB "was given >the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source >which had it all already." > >But notice HPB's words which you did NOT quote: > >"The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that >she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work >is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more >advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results >of her own study and observation." > >I contend that HPB's phrase "The sole advantage which the writer has >over her predecessors" refers back to be words immmediately before. > >One should also ask: HPB's "sole advantage" in doing WHAT? > >In this paragraph, one statement flows into the next and to "stop short" >and not quote what immediately follows is to miss the whole message >conveyed in the entire paragraph. > >In your various writings, you have given the impression that HPB >compiled (from various books and from various doctrines of isolated >"adepts" that she may have known) the Theosophical teachings that are to >be found in her books. In other words, HPB's Theosophy is some kind of >"eclectic" mix from diverse sources. The word hodge-podge also comes to >mind. > >One dictionary gives a definition of eclectic: > >"Selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines. . . ." > >In other words, HPB in fact did "resort to personal speculations and >theories." And had her background, experiences, meetings with "adepts" >been different, you would probably, contend that her compilation of >teachings would have been necessarily different. This kind of thinking >on your part makes clear why you pooh-pooh the claim that HPB "was given >the full doctrine on a silver platter by a single authoritative source >which had it all already." > >Of course, I don't know that any serious Blavatsky student would >necessarily agree with your characterization that HPB "was given the >FULL doctrine ON A SILVER PLATTER by a single authoritative source which >had it all already." This seems to be a caricature of what HPB and the >Adepts actually claimed. > >One would have to know what you mean by FULL and what you mean by ON A >SILVER PLATTER before agreeing or disagreeing with your definitions. > >But in HPB's writings from 1875 to 1891, she refers to the Occult >Brotherhood and THE Esoteric Doctrine of that Brotherhood. One need >only read THE MAHATMA LETTERS for the same view. Koot Hoomi and Morya >constantly refer to A COHERENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR KEEPING and to >giving out at least some of those teachings through HPB's writings as >well as in their own letters to Sinnett and Hume. > >So I would say it is not a wild claim to believe that there was a >"single authoritative source which had it all already." > >HPB says as much time and time and time again. Ditto for the Mahatmas. > >I append below some quotations relevant to this subject: > >"The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat >intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of THEIR SCIENCE. . >. We came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious >powers and such PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE that we may truly designate them as >the sages of the Orient. To their INSTRUCTIONS we lent a ready ear. . . >. " ISIS, I, pp. v-vi. Caps added. > >". . . from the first ages of man, THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS of all that we >are permitted to know on earth was in the safe keeping of the adepts of >the sanctuary. . . those guardians of the primitive divine revelation, >who had solved every problem that is within the grasp of human intellect >were bound together by a universal freemasonry of science and >philosophy, which formed one unbroken chain around the globe. . . ." >Isis, I, 37-38. This same theme is given throughout THE MAHATMA >LETTERS. > > >"In this curry of quotations from various philosophic and esoteric >truths purposely veiled [Koot Hoomi is speaking here of HPB's book "Isis >Unveiled"], behold OUR DOCTRINE, which is now being partially taught to >Europeans for the first time." Mahatma K.H., The Mahatma Letters, 3rd >ed. p. 118 Caps added. > >Speaking of the book ISIS UNVEILED, Master K.H. writes: > >". . . for its *incompleteness* no one but we, her [HPB's] INSPIRERS are >responsible. . . ." ML, p. 169. > >Again speaking of ISIS UNVEILED and Madame Blavatsky, Master KH pens the >following: > >" 'You will write so and so, give *so far*, and no more.'---she was >constantly told by us, when writing her book. . . . And is it because >she obeyed our orders, and wrote, purposely *veiling* some of her >facts---that now, when WE think the time has arrived to give most of, if >not the *whole* truth---that she has to be left in the lurch?. . ." >ML, 285 Caps added. > >And I repeat the quotes I first gave a few days ago: > >Master Koot Hoomi in his August 1888 letter to Colonel Olcott >specifically says about the forthcoming publication >of THE SECRET DOCTRINE: > >"I have also noted your thoughts about the Secret Doctrine. Be assured >that what she has not annotated from scientific and other works we have >given or suggested to her. Every mistake or erroneous notion corrected >and explained by her from the works of other Theosophists was corrected >by me or under my instruction. It is a more valuable work than its >predecessor, - an epitome of occult truths that will make it a source of >information and instruction for the earnest student for long years to >come." > >This is pretty plain English, Paul. > >And in the same volume of THE SECRET DOCTRINE from which you quoted, >HPB writes: > >"When the present work [The Secret Doctrine] was commenced, the writer, >feeling sure that the speculation [by A.P. Sinnett] about Mars and >Mercury was a mistake, applied to the Teachers [KH and M] by letter for >explanation and an authoritative version. Both came in due time, and >verbatim extracts from these are now given." I, 165 > >AN AUTHORITATIVE VERSION!!! > >[PAUL, THIS QUOTE ON MARS/MERCURY IS VERY APPROPRIATE/RELEVANT TO HPB'S >PARAGRAPH WHICH YOU ONLY PARTIALLY QUOTED. READ THE LATTER PART OF THAT >PARAGRAPH IN HPB'S PREFACE. . . . AGAIN SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO RELY ON >PERSONAL SPECULATION. SHE CAN ASK KOOT HOOMI AND MORYA, AS SHE DID ON >THE MARS/MERCURY QUESTION.] > >IN SUMMARY: There are literally dozens of similar statements found >through the Secret Doctrine where she writes that her source is the >Adept Brotherhood. HPB herself also wrote from 1875 up to her death in >1891 that she had an "authoritative source": the occult knowledge of >the Adept brotherhood of which KH and M. were members. > >I will stop quoting since I could literally give hundreds of quotations >from HPB's writings and the Masters' letters on this same CONSISTENT >THEME. Koot Hoomi and his brother adepts had an Esoteric Doctrine and >they allowed H P Blavatsky to give out portions of it, etc. HP >Blavatsky didn't have to rummage through various old writings and try to >divine what might or might not have been various occult truths. She had >direct access to these teachings from her own personal Master and from >several others of the much doubted Occult Brotherhood. > >ONE SIDE NOTE: What is HPB attempting to do when she quotes from >hundreds of various books, etc in her writings? Paul, you apparently >have some OTHER strange misconception concerning her reason for quoting >all these sources. I won't go into an analysis of this at this time BUT >IT CERTAINLY NEEDS TO BE GONE INTO. > >Soon I want to try to go back and deal with Jerry Schueler's comments on >the alleged improbability of the existence of the Occult Brotherhood as >described by HPB, Olcott, Damodar, M., KH. and others. I also need to >do part II of my essay dealing with the more than 30 persons who have >claimed (after HPB's death) to be HPB's successor and the new messenger >of the Masters. Thanks to Govert and Bjorn for your initial comments. > >Daniel Caldwell > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 09:37:37 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:29:20 +0700 From: "Visanu Sirichote" Subject: Re: Celibacy Message-ID: <002e01bdc840$5b1c85e0$0f02000a@vs> Nicholas: >> No, not every celibate monk or >>nun is an arhat, bodhisattva or sage -- but no arhat, bodhisattva or sage >>can reach that stage without celibacy. Which by the way, means much more >>than abstaining from copulation. Jerry S: > There >have been countless Tibetan bodisattvas, for example, who practice >karmamudra--meditation while in sexual union with a partner. One >of the greatest Adepts of all time was Ramakrisna, and he was >married. Whether there have been countless Tibetan bodisattvas practising karmamudra or not, the opinion of the Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of Tibet, should have some weight. "Advice from the Dalai Lama," in Inquiring Mind, vol.10, no.1: "Truthfully, you can only do such practice if there is no sexual desire whatsoever. The kind of realization that is required is like this: If someone gives you a goblet of wine and a glass of urine, or a plate of wonderful food and a piece of excrement, you must be in such a state that you can eat and drink from all four and it makes no difference to you what they are. Then may be you can do this practice." When asked to name any lamas who he thought were at this level, he admitted that he could not. He mentioned that there are well-known stories of great teachers like Tilopa who had transcended all attachment to conventional thinking and so were able to engage in sexual practices without harming themselves or their students, but he added that such exceptional individuals are very rare. As to Ramakrishna, if we use the term celibacy in the sense of *abstinence from sexual intercourse* then he was a celibate. His marriage was arranged by his mother when the bribe was only five years old. They never lived the usual life of husband and wife. Only after he got his realization for some time and Sarada Devi was then eighteen years old that she came to live with him as a spiritual companion. By his marriage Ramakrishna admitted the great value of marriage in man's spiritual evolution, and by adhering to his monastic vows he demonstrated the imperative necessity of self-control, purity, and continence for realization of truth. Visanu From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 10:07:37 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 08:08:36 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-Id: <199808151508.AA26375@lafn.org> >I know that Chuck can take care of himself, but I have to mention >here that Crowley (probably not regarded highly on this list, but oh well) >tried an experiment and went several months without sex, then went >several months with constant sex. When he compared the two >intervals, his writing, creativity, and spiritual perceptions were the >same during both intervals. He concluded that sex makes little >difference. I tried a somewhat similar experiement years ago >with the same result. Sex or celibacy makes little difference. > >Jerry S. So does an experiment of six months. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 10:22:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 08:23:31 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Reverence for life Message-Id: <199808151523.AA28491@lafn.org> Kym: >Wrong-o. Reverence takes many forms - it need not include establishing who >is "greater" and who is "inferior" anymore. Methinks you have the cart before the horse. One does not establish "greatness" first in order to revere someone or thing, it is innate (however deeply hidden). Surely in nature you have stumbled upon a beauteous vista that caused awe to arise spontaneously within you? >From SD 1, 210: "Devotion ... is the only [feeling] which is natural in our heart, which is innate in us..." Carlye is then quoted on the "great antique heart" -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 11:22:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 12:17:20 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: #364 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: <32c6d22e.35d5b491@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-14 13:58:23 EDT, you write: >Dear Chuck, maybe the universe gave up on you, you unrepentant >heretic. LOL. I wish the other folks on this list could hear your voice in that and catch the humor. No, I gave up on it years ago. Chuck From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 11:52:58 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 12:46:36 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <526d3576.35d5bb6d@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-14 17:46:44 EDT, you write: >I believe that the life story of Buddha shows that he tried self-control >and self-denial and found them to be wanting. His message to us >is moderation; the middle way. > >Jerry S. AAAARGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! I just do a wonderful rant against authority and now the Buddha get sited! It's enough to make someone believe in karma! Chuck From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 11:59:17 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 12:42:08 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <001901bdc86b$a5d07580$097d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Daniel Caldwell replies: > >But Jerry, several months without sex may not tell us anything one way >or the other. The time period may not be long enough in order to see if >there are real differences or not. Maybe several years would be needed >or even longer. > This is possible. I don't know. >Also there may be other factors/conditions that are also needed; not >just abstinence from sex. Were you vegetarian doing this same period? >etc. > I have been a vegetarian off and on for many years, even before finding Theosophy. Again, it doesn't seem to make much difference, although I do think that a lot of meat is bad for you. >Also during that period of time, did Crowley or you think about sex, >etc.? > Probably. There are no clear rules here, of course, which is why we are able to argue both sides. My own feeling is that you should go with your own beliefs--if you think that sex and eating meat are wrong then you should abstain from them. But forced celibacy is definitely wrong, and forced vegetarianism is a waste of time because it gets you nowhere except maybe an inner false sense of superiority which actually hurts rather than helps. I really do object to statements like we "have" to abstain from sex in order to progress spiritually, because such statements ignore sex magic, which is (like it or not) a ligitamite Path. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 12:03:23 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 12:43:40 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: celibacy Message-ID: <69b203ca.35d5babd@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-14 16:13:08 EDT, you write: >So when you mentioned a "case study" as evidence you were just joking? I >do not see how your experience can be an authority if you ignore or reject >gobs of evidence and the experience of others. If you prefer one type of >evidence and choose it -- fine -- but don't call that choice an >"experience". All you are doing is picking what appeals and rejecting >what does not. > > Good. You got my point! That is exactly what everyone does whether they like to admit it or not. But then there is the matter of experience. A wise pentecostal (and I know that sounds like an oxymoron) once said "If doctrine conflicts with experience, go with the experience." And there is nothing wrong with having some fun with the ideas along the way. Much of what I do is simply to take some concept that most of the folks I know find absolutely horrifying and see what can be done with it. Now, a lot of that is simply for the sheer joy of seeing Govert's face when I come up with something really odd, but it is also a way of testing the limits of human ingenuity. Is it possible to create a society, for example, run on the principles of badness, not pure evil, the Nazis proved you could do that, but just a general reversal of the way things are usually done, like putting people in jail for refusing to steal. The idea is fun, but I can't see how the economy would work! Would I want to live there, hell no, but the concept is fun to play with. My attitude towards as this stuff is very simple. We really have no way of knowing what is true or not at this point in our evolution so we are sort of thrashing around looking at different possibilities. The key is not to get so caught up in things that one loses sight of the possibility that it might all be wrong. But then, if we blow it this time, we get lots of other chances so don't take it too seriously. Have fun, enjoy the life you have and make the most of what it gives you. And above all else, don't go around condemning those who have a different way of doing things. People's lives are hard enough without them being preached at. One more thing. I would be very worried about anyone who would consider me an authority. On the other hand, being a guru might be fun.... Chuck From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 12:07:39 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:02:40 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: #368 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-14 21:03:41 EDT, you write: >However, you failed to address how ONLY the intellect is the best way. You >speak of how the "creation" of a conscience serves only to keep people in >control; however, in what way would adhering only to the intellect prevent >that same danger? Since we are all born with differing intellects, >including mental retardation and other "non-efficent" types of brain >function, how would valuing only the intellect ensure complete freedom for >humanity? > > >Kym I don't really know if it is the best way, and it probably is not the only way. My point is that the universe doesn't necessarily have to think like people do and given the differences in time and scale it strikes me as pretty silly to think that it would. Given that, my objection to systems that would have the universe respond to human feelings should be obvious, the universe simply does not recognize them. After all, if the sun decides to explode, the just and the unjust will fry alike. Now, go back in time a few days. All I did was answer a question which was could a system be formulated that would allow people who did nasty things to go off scott free. I showed that a such a system could be conceived. And I really do believe that if you get away with something in this life there is no reason to believe that it will come back at you in any subsequent one. That just strikes me as wishful thinking. As far as the rest of it goes, I have no idea how it works. I'm as much in the dark as everyone else. Now, for the sake of everyone's sleep, please don't ask me to formulate a cosmos where Mushashi's method is the ONLY way to attain enlightenment because that would be a fun thing to do. The Samuari Pilgrimage, which required the fighter to seek out opponents and test his skill continuously in fights to the death, was a part of Musashi's culture and period. As far as his enlightenment goes, I suggest you read The Book of Five Rings and judge for yourself. Chuck From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 12:52:37 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:55:32 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Ramakrishna's wife Message-Id: <199808151755.AA11506@lafn.org> SRI SARADA DEVI, THE HOLY MOTHER [1853 - 1920] "When Holy Mother came to Dakshineswar at the age of sixteen, Sri Ramakrishna asked her whether she had come to pull him down to a worldly life. Without hesitation she said, "No, I am here to help you realize your Chosen Ideal." From then on, Holy Mother lived with Sri Ramakrishna as his spiritual companion, devoted wife, disciple, and always the nun. She was the embodiment of purity. Her mind was never sullied by the faintest breath of worldliness, though she lived with Sri Ramakrishna for the greater part of fourteen years. She never missed communion with God, whom she described as lying in the palm of her hand, though she was engaged day and night in various activities. "Holy Mother was an unusual awakener of souls. With her disciples she served as teacher, dissolving their doubts, as mother, who through love and compassion won their hearts, and as the Divinity, who assured them of liberation. Herself nearly illiterate, through simple words she taught them the most profound truths. Her affectionate maternal love tamed their rebellious spirits; but her great power lay in her solicitude for all. Often she said, "I am the Mother, who will look after them if not I ?" She encouraged them when they were depressed because of slow spiritual progress, and she took upon herself their sins and iniquities, suffering on that account. "Holy Mother was conscious of her divine nature, but she rarely expressed this awareness. For many years Sri Ramakrishna practiced great austerities and formally renounced the world, but Holy Mother lived as a simple householder, surrounded by quarrelsome and greedy relatives. As a teacher she taught the realization of God alone is real, and everything else, impermanent. The human body so treasured by most people, survives cremations as only three pounds of ashes. Holy Mother -- humility itself -- claimed that she was in no way different from other devotees of the Master. Her disciples felt awed and uplifted when she blessed them by touching their head with the same hand which had touched the feet of God. She was fully aware of her disciples' present limitations and their future possibilities. No one went away from her with a downcast heart. "The outstanding virtues of Indian womanhood are courage, serenity, self-control, sweetness, compassion, wisdom, and an intuitive relationship with God. Holy Mother possessed all these virtues. Since the acquisition of such gifts is the dream of all women, Holy Mother may aptly be seen as the symbol of aspiration of women everywhere." -- Swami Nikhilananda "Holy Mother and the Ideal of Indian Womanhood." Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras, India. _______________________________________________________________ -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 13:07:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 11:06:38 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Fire of Devotion Message-Id: <199808151806.AA13800@lafn.org> "It is of utmost importance to season the passions of the young with devotion, which seldom dies in the mind that has received an early tincture of it. Though it may seem extinguished for a while by the cares of the world, the heats of youth, or the allurements of vice, it generally breaks out and discovers itself again as soon as discretion, consideration, age, or misfortune have brought the man to himself. The fire may be covered and overlaid but cannot be entirely quenched and smothered." Joseph Addison (1672-1719) -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 14:07:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:02:53 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <002801bdc87f$55a01c00$0f7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >AAAARGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! > >I just do a wonderful rant against authority and now the Buddha get sited! > >It's enough to make someone believe in karma! > >Chuck Hows it going Chuck? I have heard so many quotes from the Authorities that I just couldn't help throwing a few in myself. Sorry. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 14:22:39 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:14:44 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <001f01bdc87f$05ad7ee0$0f7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Dear Jerry: > >It seems clear that some comments on both sides are not melding. > Why must they? >Where does HPB describe any "Abyss ?" > HPB writes: "Exoterically it (i.e., the word 'Kshetra') means simply--"field," while esoterically it represents "the great abyss" of the Kabalists, the chaos and the plane (cteis or yoni), in which the creative energy implants the germ of the manifested universe. In other words they are the Purusha and Prakriti of Kapila, the blind and cripple producing motion by their union, Purusha supplying the head and Prakriti the limbs" (The Theosophist, Vol V, No. 5(53). This short passage clearly indicates that she was well aware of the Abyss of the Qabala (she would have had to). In the SD she shows her cyclic Globes against the Qabalistic Sephiroth and it is clear from that picture that the Abyss is located at the top of the fourth plane. The only reason that I can give for why Theosophists have been in the dark about the Abyss all these years is that apparently they don't study much Qabala. In the above passage, she indicates that the Abyss is actually a cosmic yoni, and her sexual innuendo here is quite plain. >In several places HPB indicates that all the effort done on this >evolutionary side of manifestation (call it Mayavic if you will, since >materially it is indeed not "permanent") is totally lost at the end of >Manvantara ? [ Particularly this is brought out in her brief article ISIS >UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA -- "Theosophist" January 1886; ULT HPB >ARTICLES III- 265 ] > Why does your first sentence end with a question mark? I agree that something survives each manvantara--its called the divine Monad and it survives because it is located outside of space-time and outside of our 7-plane solar system. Theosophists like to imagine that even the divine monad evolves, but since it is outside of time, I can't see how it, or anything else outside of time, can evolve (the word itself means a progression over time and without time I cannot conceive of any "progress"). I have already read HPB, Dallas, and I pretty much agree with her. Your quotes are unnecessary. It is obviously your interpretation of her writing that I have a problem with, as do you with mine. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 14:24:22 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:37:32 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: #368 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: <002001bdc87f$068f5360$0f7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Chuck wrote: > >>Wrong. Conscience is something created by social conditioning for the >purpose >>of making the individual fit in with their society. Other than that it >serves >>no purpose whatsoever. > >Then please explain why some young children, being raised in the same >household, appear to exhibit different types of conscience. For example, >one sibling may show no horror at kicking a small dog, yet another of their >siblings would never do such a thing, is very upset at the siblings >behavior, and would rather spend time petting the dog rather than kicking it. > Professionals have studied this very phenomenon and have concluded that its not necessarily the parents' fault if a child turns out to be a bad apple. Why? because two children can indeed be brought up together the same way and come out different. It has to do with how they react to environmental stressors, this coming from what science calls genes and Theosophy calls past lives. Two children of the same parents can take on different genetic characteristics (their brains can be wired differently from birth). >If conscience is ONLY developed after social conditioning, why the >difference between people at very early ages - even with exposure to the >same ideas? > Research has shown that conscience must develop before age 2 or it likely never will. The basic factor in developing a conscience is trust (Erikson's stage of trust vs mistrust seems to be holding up under a lot of research). My adopted daughter has absolutely no conscience. She has never, that we know of, felt regret, shame, guilt, or remorse. Her reaction to being caught doing something wrong is anger. She is not a lot of fun to live with, and all the research indicates that she will never develop a conscience at this late state (she is now 13). I have done extensive research on conscience and its development because of my daughter, and find that its mostly (maybe not completely) a social thing because if a child's primary caregiver doesn't allow the child to trust others during its first two years, it will never have a conscience (this is true of most borderline personalities as well as conduct disorder types). With two children, all one of them requires is to feel untrusting of others in order for it's behavior to deviate from that of the other. >Or, for that matter, why, if conscience is ONLY developed after social >conditioning, do so many adult people have such varying types of conscience? > The degree of a person's having a conscience is largely in proportion to their ability to trust other people. This is a scientific fact. Now, if a person wants to somehow get past lives sinto the picture, then you can always ask, why does Joey mistrust people while Suzy has complete trust? According to what I have studied in psychology, genes and past lives notwithstanding, if a child is not allowed to develop trust during the first two years of life (someone cleaning him/her when dirty, and feeding him/her when hungry and so on) it will never develop a conscience. So, maybe reincarnation and past karma allow us to be born into specific households with caregivers who meet our karmic needs? I would like to think so. >>As to the role of it in other aspects of life, I might point out the example >>of a man who had no conscience about killing whatsoever and yet was a very >>talented artist, a brilliant writer and attained enlightenment in a single >>lifetime, the Japanese Sword Saint Musashi who killed at least 60 men in >>single combat and wrote one of the best tactical manuals around. > It is possible to not trust people and still be a good artist or writer. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 14:27:11 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:59:32 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <002101bdc87f$07acaa40$0f7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >There are many who believe that this life in this Personality is the only >life we will ever live, and they act accordingly. Are they wrong, or just >mistaken, because the effort to carry thought out of the personal into the >Individual has not yet been mastered ? This life is, indeed, the only life that any personality will live. For the ego, its a one-time deal. This is why the ego fears death--and rightly so. >What do we know that they don't ? The only tool we employ for this inner >conviction of continuity is the idea of Egoity -- of a continuing Self (a >"Spiritual Ahankara ?") which is the animus the energizer within. And we >endow it mentally with the power to survive death. > When I raise my consciousness to the Ego level, death seems silly and I no longer fear it at all. When I return to my body, the certainty of my own death scares the devil out of me. >Using this as one of the arguments, the structure that we may construct as a >demonstration of reincarnation is supplemented from the records of the >Adepts who as CONSCIOUS BEINGS have survived such changes and have witnessed >the changes that every human goes through after the death of this >personality. At least that is how I see it. HPB speaks to this point in >detail in the KEY. > If the "records of the Adepts" makes you happy, then go for it, my friend. It does help stimulate my intuition a bit, but the only thing that I have found to really be helpful are my own transpersonal experiences. >I used the term "thought men" to indicate an individual who thinks and uses >the mind. > OK. >If we "use the mind" then the mind is a tool of the Real Man. But it is also the "Slayer of the Real." The "Real Man" doesn't need it or use it at all. The whole point or goal of yoga and meditation is to go beyond the mind. >You speak of >rising above ratiocination, logic, etc., and the use of the mind -- perhaps >this is intuition ? Yes, and also spirituality. > I look at the "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali," which seem to >throw the most comprehensive light on the functions of the mind and the Self >that uses it. It appears there that the various steps of self-discipline >are quite explicit. > I used these yogas too many years ago. I like them. But they are pointing out a way or path, and they are not pointing out Truth. There are, in fact, many ways and many paths. I agree on the need for self-discipline, and this is true for any real spiritual path. >As to a description of the relative functions and faculties of ATMA, >BUDDHI, MANAS -- I have used the KEY as a base to study these and as well >various statements found in the SD ( Vol. I 570-575) as an example. The >positions, values and conditions of these faculties (principles) above or >below some "Abyss" is not understood. No, but it will be when you experience all of this stuff. Until then you can either take my word for it, or throw my words away. Its your choice. Its actually all pretty dicey, because experiences above the Abyss cannot be put into words and are formless. Its only later, after such experiences, that the human mind puts words and forms to the experience in an effort to come to grips with what happened as well as to communicate with others. If my words are poorly chosen, I have to apologise. I am doing my best. > As I say above: where does HPB speak >of an "Abyss ?" Why should there be one in a spherical UNIVERSE that has no >limits of extension ? Where did you get this idea? HPB clearly tells us that our 7-plane solar system is only one of many, and is very limited. I don't recall anywhere her saying that it is spherical, although it is in the sense that her Globes make a circlular motion around the planetary chain. The Abyss itself is actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' (names given by G de P). Its the third plane downward, fifth upward. Without this plane and its two Globes, we have ten Globes to exactly match the Qabalistic Tree. While I am on this circular business, please note that life flows around HPB's Earth planetary chain of Globes widdershins--exoterically the direction of evil, and esoterically the direction of magic. Just one insteresting sidenote that I discovered awhile back. >As you say our understanding of what Theosophy teaches may seem to be at >variance, and we may have approached it by different paths and therefore use >terms that either of us are not completely familiar with -- so we agree in >some things and seem to disagree in others, but as I see it, we both profit >from the encounter, and I can certainly see that there are further depths to >be plumbed for me. > >Thanks for your consideration. > >Best wishes as always, > >Dallas > Thank you, Dallas. I appreciate your zeal and enthusiasm. Hopefully we will help each other here. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 15:37:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:28:08 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D5EF58.2ACEA2EB@usa.net> References: <199808132104.QAA23076@proteus.imagiware.com> <35D50523.19A@dlc.fi> mika perala wrote: > Bjorn wrote: > > > > > I think the "poetic language" is intentional and an integral part of the > > > > message. > > > > > > What purpose does this 'intent' serve? > > > > Yes, why are people using poetic language at all? Why do people enjoy poetry? > > > > Your answer is probabley as good as mine. Personally I think that our feeling > > nature, and intuitional faculties, often respond to poetic language in a way > > that purely intellectual discourse can not accomplish. > > > > OK, I see. I guess it`s not my kind of poetry then. Fine, we can not all have the same taste, nor should we. > Somehow, I find it inappropriate (or it makes it sound a bit banal ) > when this kind of straight 'teaching'kind of text is expressed this way. I think it looks a bit that way in written form, but it is much more meaningful in the context of the spoken dictation, when the radiation is conveyed more directly, not only the words. But then, these dictations are very different. SOme are much more "factual" than others, and the poetic style also varies widely from one to another. > My ears like it more when spiritual poetry is much more veiled, more > art-like. Perhaps I can dig up some examples that would please your ear better. > > P.S. Bjorn, are you Swedish? I lived in Sweded for the first 35 years of my life, then moved to the US. > P.S.S. I hope you can understand my sometimes weird expressions. I know quite a few fins, and they are always extremely weird, so I am used to it! :) Bjorn From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 17:07:39 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:58:01 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D60469.D4552A95@usa.net> References: <007e01bdc7e3$a9941600$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > > To me, Theosophy is a knowledge thing, and not a belief thing. So you think Theosophical knowledge is possible without belief? Perhaps it is, but not in its more potent form. A person without belief/faith is a pretty powerless person. > > The use of an appelation such as "Maha Chohan 82" is gratuitous and an > insult to the condition and functions of a "Maha Chohan." You are really saying that you don't BELIEVE that this was dictated by the Maha Chohan. Fine with me. However, I believe it was. > Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does > not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does. Again, you are doing nothing more than stating your belief, without backing it up with anything substantial. > So I object to > anything so attributed [to the MC], realizing that it stems from the psychic rather than from the spritual planes. Again, you are stating your belief and I can state mine: "I am realizing that it stems from the spiritual rather than from the psychic planes." > A "spiritual" communication when deserved relates > to some reasonable and logical function of which the recipient is already > well aware and can fit the added information into what he already knows. > Further such messages are usually strictly private and are not to be > broadcast unless such is ordered as part of the message. See the MAHATMA > LETTERS for these conditions and restrictions. The masters have used many ways of communicating throughout the ages. Both public and private forms of communication have been used. The Prophets of Israel were delivering messages from their God quite publically, many times. > ======================================== > > >> If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a > nowhere > >> land. > > > >Then, please, explain also what is, in your opinion, so very "untheosophic" > >about these statements. > > ========================================= > > DALLAS : > > Persoanlly I have no particular fault with the statements but the reason WHY > does not seem to be given nor any link to karma offered. I only quoted one or two pages. Karma etc is being treated in many other places. > The situation > described is one that we all sense and does not need any special emphasis > that I can see. Often it is the job of those with a spiritual mission to remind people about things they know, or "should know", but may fail to apply. > > DALLAS: > > Misunderstanding of what I meant to say. > > It is that: our intuitions and spiritual communications from the HIGHER > SELF, being universal in scope have little to do with our personal > situations -- limited by our focus on personal desire. It is naturally the desire of the beings in higher spheres to see us succeed in transcending suffering and limitation. To provide pracical advice to us as to how to accomplish this makes a whole lot of sense to me. If they didn't, I would have a hard time believeing in their authenticity. Bjorn From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 17:37:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:25:50 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <7db51911.35d60aef@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-15 15:11:53 EDT, you write: >Hows it going Chuck? I have heard so many quotes from the Authorities >that I just couldn't help throwing a few in myself. Sorry. > >Jerry S. > > Well, aside from everyone missing the point as usual, my blood pressure is finally getting back to normal which is doing wonders for my dizzy spells. Sometimes I wonder if some of our friends on this list have real lives. My girlfriend and I spent last evening in a cocktail lounge with about 85 of our friends from an aol chat room and it would be safe to bet that not one person in that room gave diddly about anything that has been discussed on this list, yet they are pretty happy with their lives. I am now convinced that the sure cure for overmuch Theosophy is going out and getting stewed. Chuck From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 17:43:56 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 16:34:07 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #375 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980815163407.007a4730@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808151924.OAA17095@proteus.imagiware.com> Chuck wrote: >I don't really know if it is the best way, and it probably is not the only >way. My point is that the universe doesn't necessarily have to think like >people do and given the differences in time and scale it strikes me as pretty >silly to think that it would. In all seriousness, Chuck, I want to thank you for responding with "I don't know" instead of providing me with some long-winded yakkity which serves to try to make me feel ignorant and you too knowledgeable to discuss my points (even though you just may be). Not to embarrass you, but, I consider it very courageous. It is rare to come across someone who is not afraid to plainly say "I don't know" (I, myself, fall into that trap many times myself). And I did miss your attempt at "reverse psychology" - that may be due to the very suspicious nature I have developed while interacting on theos-talk. Which is not a good thing on my part, I admit. But I have seen the spiritual damage done by those who claim to be clever and privy to the "Masters" thoughts - and this damage has obviously effected me, for my "idealism" is in dire danger of dying. My grandma warned me that this may happen as "idealism" is not welcomed and considered nothing more than childish ignorance. . .she told me to beware lest I lose it. . .and my heart breaks with the thought that, perhaps, I have disappointed my grandma. . .after all, I did promise her it would never happen. A hardening of the heart and soul is not a good thing - and after my exposure to theos-talk, should someone touch my heart they may now find fewer places of non-resistance. Definitely not a good thing. Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 18:07:39 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 17:01:08 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #374 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980815170108.007a4100@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808151429.JAA32075@proteus.imagiware.com> Dallas wrote: >Thanks for your comments. May I proceed ? No, Dallas, you may not. Again, in this same post you suggest it is only my lack of reading that prompts my questioning - I already have told you what I have read. You and I have apparently gleaned totally different messages from the writings. No matter, though, Compassion, to me, is more important than book learning. You do not teach Compassion; you teach Heirarchies and Idolatry and Arrogance. I am not interested - it's poison. As far as I'm concerned, it is best for all if we no longer exchange postings. You have plenty of worshippers (and a few non-worshippers) on this list who will address you in the manner you demand. I doubt you'll miss me. Oh, one more thing - and I gotta say it - Jerry used the term "horny" in one of his posts to you. Definitely a "barnyard term" - be sure to chastise him. It's only fair, you know? Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 18:22:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:07:44 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Approaching adepts Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980815180744.013b38a0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <007001bdc856$cb022520$03e78ccc@nwc.net> At 07:12 AM 8/15/1998 -0700, you wrote: >Aug 15th 1998 > >Dear Doss: > >Both your postings of today: Thanks -- agreement > >Some where there has to be a reasonable basis for communications. WE have >all approached each other through this channel of talk and exchange so that >we can be of mutual benefit to each other, I think. > >Our queries and comments open minds to other vistas we may have hitherto not >yet considered. It is a "fellowship of reconciliation" from that point of >view. > >BTW I had earlier sent you some floppies with some of the collections of >quotations on various theosophical topics. have you had the time or >opportunity to look at them, or part of them, and evaluate them ? > >Best wishes, Dallas > >================== > I have not yet looked into them. I will soon. ...mkr From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 18:31:27 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 17:20:30 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: Reverence for life Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980815172030.007a8cd0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808151924.OAA17095@proteus.imagiware.com> Nicholas wrote: >Methinks you have the cart before the horse. One does not establish >"greatness" first in order to revere someone or thing, it is innate (however >deeply hidden). Excuse me, but you are the one who suggested that reverence entails "greatness." Hence, YOUR quote: "We can only rever one who greater than ourselves and who can abide that thought of being inferior nowadays." You said we can "only rever one who is greater." Note your use of the term "only." Yet, now you are saying, in your current post that this is not the case. Please clarify. >Surely in nature you have stumbled upon a beauteous >vista that caused awe to arise spontaneously within you? Of course! But this is not the point of the original post for nature is not a "who." I was under the impression you were talking about people - that some people (HPB perhaps) should be and, yet, are not being revered for their "greatness." I think your posts may contradict each other. Also, you included a quote talking about "devotion" - are "devotion" and "reverence" the same thing? I do not think they are. Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 19:07:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 20:07:43 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: In a message dated 8/15/98 3:31:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: << The Abyss itself is actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' >> It seems from the diagram on p. 346 in GdeP's FUNDAMENTALS OF ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY that Globes A and G would be on a higher plane of matter/energy. i.e., Lower Mental. Globes B and F would be Astral, C and E would be Etheric and the Globe D would be dense physical matter. This is how it's explained in Jinarajadasa's FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THEOSOPHY on p. 226. Globes A and G then would be Kama-Manasic but necessarily in the "abyss" as would the dense physical globe D, a globe where we are all struggling with dense physicality. The denser the matter the more imprisoned is the Monad. This is truly abysmal compared to a living on globes made of mental matter. I find therefore Purucker's description of the two higher globes as "the Abyss" perplexing and mystifying. Any thoughts on this, Dallas or Jerry ? Best wishes, Sutratman From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 19:52:38 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:06 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #375 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980815184506.007a1a20@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808151924.OAA17095@proteus.imagiware.com> Jerry wrote: >My adopted daughter has absolutely no conscience. >She has never, that we know of, felt regret, shame, guilt, or remorse. >Her reaction to being caught doing something wrong is anger. She is >not a lot of fun to live with, and all the research indicates that she will >never develop a conscience at this late state (she is now 13). This last year it came to be that I had to take in my sister (at the time, 16) who, by all appearances, exhibited the same reactions your daughter does - only anger. She was completely out of control and my mother couldn't cope. Since I am not a parent, I had no clue what to do. It seemed, at times, hopeless. There were instances where I had to simply pin my sister down on the floor and yell in her face repeatedly "I love you. I love you. I love you." Often, I was met with spittle in my face. But I continually told her that my love for her would not allow me to let her continue to react in a way that threatened to hurt her and that her pain really was my pain, too. One night, after about eight months of following her around, fighting with her, dealing with constant curfew violations, and her telling me that she "hated me," she silently walked in to my bedroom, turned on the light, (a thought flashed through my mind that she might be planning on killing me), stood for a couple seconds (which seemed like a lifetime), and then simply said "I love you, too." And she walked away. Today, she is a different person, or so it appears. This is not to say that I take credit, for, ultimately, it was her decision alone to change - not mine. She deserves full recognition for that. But my point is - it was believed by all those around her that she wouldn't and couldn't change, that she was hopeless. And she was well past the age you cite as being able to develop any conscience. And I admit, it could have gone the other way. My heart breaks for your daughter, for she will be the one who truly pays the price of her behavior. And I do not believe, at this young age, that her behavior is entirely her fault - and that, too, is heartwrenching, for she was denied or somehow missed what all children should have - unconditional love. Please don't give up on her - she can change - there is hope, Jerry. There really is. It's not over yet. She may have a specialness hidden inside her that once revealed will stun all those around her. There is a reason she was "given" to your family. I cannot imagine that the only reason would be to simply drive all of you insane - which something like this can do. I do not mean to insult you in any way - I am just sharing what I have recently discovered about children who are seen as 'hopeless.' Maybe it's my "idealism" going bonkers again, but I don't believe there is anybody who is hopeless. Your daughter senses your thoughts that she is "not a lot of fun to live with" and that can only serve to further concrete her anger. And I know all this is much easier said than done - but I could not keep quiet on this issue. Your child is worth all your mighty effort - and your effort will not, ultimately, go "unrewarded." Your daughter is special in her difference and as valuable to the world as a any "good" child. If she believes and you believe, love will manifest itself. Love sees and knows all - a platitude, yes, but a true one. I send forth thoughts of the greatest Love to you, Jerry, your family and to your daughter. I have faith that you can do it, Jerry, and I have faith that your daughter can develop into a wonderful person. Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 15 20:52:39 1998 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:54:09 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Reverence for life Message-Id: <199808160154.AA02694@lafn.org> Kym: >Excuse me, but you are the one who suggested that reverence entails >"greatness." Hence, YOUR quote: "We can only rever one who greater than >ourselves and who can abide that thought of being inferior nowadays." You >said we can "only rever one who is greater." Note your use of the term >"only." Yet, now you are saying, in your current post that this is not the >case. Please clarify. N: Greatness or superiority can easily be seen or noticed. Many folks are superior (spiritually and otherwise) in many ways to me. But that produces in me no *guarantee* of awe, reverence or devotion. On the other hand when reverence or devotion arises in me towards someone that does *guarantee* their superiority in nobility -- their greatness -- and my lack. N. >>Surely in nature you have stumbled upon a beauteous >>vista that caused awe to arise spontaneously within you? K: >Of course! But this is not the point of the original post for nature is >not a "who." I was under the impression you were talking about people - >that some people (HPB perhaps) should be and, yet, are not being revered >for their "greatness." N: I don't save posts for too long. I thought there was a non-people word in it. In any case, the notion I was trying to convey is that reverence is an innate, spontaneous, unplanned, arising of a sublime feeling. Devotion does not arise (and would be quashed) by calculating the greatness first or comparing little me to great him and then expecting genuine devotion to spring up in the heart. Nature does not exclude humans (although it might wish to) does it? -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 04:07:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:07:40 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #372 Message-ID: <35D72DFC.5B46@dlc.fi> References: <199808150120.UAA30882@proteus.imagiware.com> Dallas wrote: > Dear Mike: Mika, actually. > Agreed -- there are plenty of areas of expertise everywhere. > > As one suggests, there are books to read and study. And if one desires to > study philosophy, mathematics, logic, Theosophy, algebra, painting ... there > are enough written guides to satisfy one for a long time. Along books there are also people who know much more about those things than I do. I don`t think that I´m that 'evolved' in anything that I would need outside help from other spheres. Mika Perala Librarian of the Helsinki T.S. (Adyar) From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 04:14:10 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:57:20 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Adepts Message-ID: <35D72B90.7C89@dlc.fi> References: <199808150017.TAA26884@proteus.imagiware.com> Jerry wrote > > > > Yes. Physical Adepts abound on Earth, but to find the "right" one > for your own personal developmental needs is very hard to do. > In today's USA it is practically impossible, thought I agree that it > is possible (Da Free John is the guru of Ken Wilber, for example. > When Wilber publically admitted this, he lost a lot of his following > who didn't like Da Free John). > Where do you thing spiritual and uplifting thoughts come from? > When a spiritual or loving idea comes into our mind, where do > you think its source may be? Dis-carnate Teachers (whom HPB > called nirmanakayas) do this. There is an article in this months > Quest about a Teacher visited in dreams, etc. I find these kind > of gurus to be more meaningful and helpful to me than physical > Teachers. > I don`t know where all those uplifting thoughts come from. I haven`t seen, or perceived in any other means either, anything or anybody, thoughts just come. If you know, good for you. I just feel that I learn more about myself and human nature as I live and communicate with my fellow beings. These people are actually the 'best possible' teachers for me right now. I was not born with clair-voyance abilities of any kind and I am not going to practice anything that would get me those things. I think I`m better off them, don`t know about the future. Mika From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 08:37:42 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 06:40:31 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #372 Message-ID: <001d01bdc91b$9bcdd5e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 16th 1998 Dear Mika: Sorry that I misspelled your name. Today I posted an answer to another which involves a consideration of the interior HIGHER SELF. It is not from "another sphere." It is our friend. Do you have available a copy of HPB's TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE ? I believe it is BLAVATSKY -- COMPLETE WORKS -- look at the discussion from about page 60 to 80 (after the start of the text) there HPB has discussed this. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 2:18 AM > From: "Mike Perala" > Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #372 >Dallas wrote: >> Dear Mike: > >Mika, actually. > > > >> Agreed -- there are plenty of areas of expertise everywhere. >> >> As one suggests, there are books to read and study. And if one desires to >> study philosophy, mathematics, logic, Theosophy, algebra, painting ... there >> are enough written guides to satisfy one for a long time. > >Along books there are also people who know much more about those things >than I do. I don`t think that I´m that 'evolved' in anything that I >would need outside help from other spheres. > >Mika Perala >Librarian of the Helsinki T.S. (Adyar) > > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 08:45:27 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 06:35:06 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #375 Message-ID: <001c01bdc91b$9a6d5b80$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 16th 1998 Dear Rilke: Your answer and illustration of the use of unconditioned love as a cure -- and your marvelous dedication and persistence is magnificent. I was happy to read what you have posted, and believe that as a practical psychologist you did a wonderful thing. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 6:04 PM > From: "Kym Smith" > Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #375 >Jerry wrote: > >>My adopted daughter has absolutely no conscience. >>She has never, that we know of, felt regret, shame, guilt, or remorse. >>Her reaction to being caught doing something wrong is anger. She is >>not a lot of fun to live with, and all the research indicates that she will >>never develop a conscience at this late state (she is now 13). > >This last year it came to be that I had to take in my sister (at the time, >16) who, by all appearances, exhibited the same reactions your daughter >does - only anger. She was completely out of control and my mother >couldn't cope. Since I am not a parent, I had no clue what to do. It >seemed, at times, hopeless. > >There were instances where I had to simply pin my sister down on the floor >and yell in her face repeatedly "I love you. I love you. I love you." >Often, I was met with spittle in my face. But I continually told her that >my love for her would not allow me to let her continue to react in a way >that threatened to hurt her and that her pain really was my pain, too. > >One night, after about eight months of following her around, fighting with >her, dealing with constant curfew violations, and her telling me that she >"hated me," she silently walked in to my bedroom, turned on the light, (a >thought flashed through my mind that she might be planning on killing me), >stood for a couple seconds (which seemed like a lifetime), and then simply >said "I love you, too." And she walked away. Today, she is a different >person, or so it appears. > >This is not to say that I take credit, for, ultimately, it was her decision >alone to change - not mine. She deserves full recognition for that. But >my point is - it was believed by all those around her that she wouldn't and >couldn't change, that she was hopeless. And she was well past the age you >cite as being able to develop any conscience. And I admit, it could have >gone the other way. > >My heart breaks for your daughter, for she will be the one who truly pays >the price of her behavior. And I do not believe, at this young age, that >her behavior is entirely her fault - and that, too, is heartwrenching, for >she was denied or somehow missed what all children should have - >unconditional love. > >Please don't give up on her - she can change - there is hope, Jerry. There >really is. It's not over yet. She may have a specialness hidden inside >her that once revealed will stun all those around her. There is a reason >she was "given" to your family. I cannot imagine that the only reason >would be to simply drive all of you insane - which something like this can do. > >I do not mean to insult you in any way - I am just sharing what I have >recently discovered about children who are seen as 'hopeless.' Maybe it's >my "idealism" going bonkers again, but I don't believe there is anybody who >is hopeless. Your daughter senses your thoughts that she is "not a lot of >fun to live with" and that can only serve to further concrete her anger. > >And I know all this is much easier said than done - but I could not keep >quiet on this issue. Your child is worth all your mighty effort - and your >effort will not, ultimately, go "unrewarded." Your daughter is special in >her difference and as valuable to the world as a any "good" child. If she >believes and you believe, love will manifest itself. Love sees and knows >all - a platitude, yes, but a true one. > >I send forth thoughts of the greatest Love to you, Jerry, your family and >to your daughter. I have faith that you can do it, Jerry, and I have faith >that your daughter can develop into a wonderful person. > > >Kym > > > > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 08:48:43 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 06:29:25 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <000f01bdc919$fc854640$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 16th 1998 Globes and Evolution Dear "Thread Soul:": ( and who isn't one ?) Personally I have not adequately studied what de Puruker has to say in commentary on HPB's S D . I am therefore not well qualified to argue for or against his views. But I have found HPB's to be consistent. { What little of de Puruker's writings I have read have troubled me, since in those steno reports of what he has given, he very often seems to "talk down" to his audience, claiming that they neither have the erudition nor the capacity to understand what he understands. Also he says in so many words that he will give them what he considers they will understand. Personally I would not stand for anyone making such a claim to my face. I am annoyed by such an attitude as it neglects the fact that innate in each us is precisely that "Sutratma" that is our individual link to the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT, and therefore to the same sources of Knowledge as he and everyone else has. If our "Personalities" were not bound by the karma of our past errors, we would be able to access the same source of Truth that is ever-present around us all. I instinctively withdraw from anyone who makes personal claims. I would therefore hesitate to say if his conclusions are right or wrong. But I would strongly urge that you independently correlate what HPB has to say in SD and in her articles on the dual evolutionary program (actually it is a triple one - see SD I 181) that involves Spirit descending into matter on one hand, and Matter ascending to Spirit on the other. The third being the unmodified CONSCIOUSNESS of each MONAD which gives it the capacity to see and know everything once that it sets its mind-tool to the discipline of self-purification and of manifesting that capacity in life. She (HPB) repeatedly says that both are ONE but in differentiation they APPEAR to be separate. The third, the MIND unites both always, and is perhaps the real CAUSE of all manifestation. What unites and comprehends them ? Is it not the 3rd evolutionary factor -- the MIND. If the MONAD (Atma-Buddhi) is an eternal/immortal UNIT of force having an entitative existence -- as she says, then it is in terms of MATTER totally imponderable. Hence it is incomprehensible except as an ideal, or a "logical necessity." And it is the Mind-faculty that is able to encompass this concept. HPB says in several places that the REAL MATTER is not known to us. We have no means from this plane to analyze it. But it can also be thought of. What then is our present "reality ?" Is it not that which our present mental faculties ( a mix of Buddhi, manas (higher and lower) and Kama provide. What then is our work in this stage of evolution ? Is it not to try to grasp what we can of that which the Masters have offered to us ? Many who have written after HPB's death, trying to offer their fellow-students such wisdom as they have acquired seem to also offer their views and in some cases these are not "in line" with HPB's own statements when these are careful correlated and brought together. In my opinion before any good answer is to be given to your question, each one of us ought to set down what WE HAVE FOUND OUT in our own studies of HPB's (and Master's) writings. Its always my opinion in giving my views that those are invariably colored by my own personal mix -- and therefore they ought not to be considered as anything but a student's views -- seemingly coherent today, but liable to modification tomorrow, should I find that I have neglected to consider some vital factor. In other words. We deal with a 7-fold Universe. Nature contains everything. Nature is a living, dynamic and progressive WHOLE. When we analyze it we, as 7-fold beings using our minds (partially wrapped in Kama -- and therefore subject to error) may only see a partial view. If you think this is "hedging," then you are right. We have each of us the faculty of inherent vision of the TRUE. But we are going to be expressing it in terms of what we have learned and mastered in this personality, in this life. It may, therefore be quite incomplete. I regard all those who have written other than, or after HPB as being in the same condition. hence, while I might avail myself of their views I would not adopt them after much study. For me, to cut the matter short, I would prefer going directly to HPB and seeing what she has to say. I would not do this out of dogmatism or fanaticism, but to make use of the so-far most accurate information that has come my way. It is but natural that others may disagree with me. Briefly: there is THE ONE TRUTH. Our 10-fold, 24-fold, 48-fold, or 7-fold descriptions of it (offered by various Schools) -- as an example see how on p. 157, Vol. I SD, HPB has reconciled several schools of philosophy -- are only to assist us to consider the many ways in which the CONSCIOUSNESS of the inner PERCEIVER in each of us (which is our, or rather the "ray" of the ONE HIGHER SELF of the UNIVERSE) can view any subject selected for meditation. Why not, then, try to apply the 7-fold division of Universal and Human "principles" that HPB seems to have adopted ? In the first 300 pages of the SD, Vol. 1 she shows, using the Stanzas from the BOOK OF DZYAN , how Spirit involves itself progressively during the first 3 Rounds into Matter. I note that the "builders" -- Dhyani Buddhas and Dhyan Chohans which once were mind-men, and continue to be MIND BEINGS work cooperatively in many diverse ways to bring about this gradual immaterialization so that by the middle of the 4th Round one finds that the time for the next crop of MONADS (which on our Earth are those that come over from the Moon-chain) to have MANAS lit up in them. This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago. We are just past the mid-way point in this Manvantara. [ Very few exact figures are given to us in the SD. HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some information we are yet to acquire. the figures given in SD II 68-70 she says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60: as in 60 x 60 = 360; 360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000; and so on all multiples -- but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES. So we are only given a theoretical sketch of the Rounds, Globes and Races, etc....But those of us who are impatient desire to have things fixed in time, space and as mental images -- so very often we desire a structure that is quite rigid. As I see it the danger in that is that we may be starting with wrong premises. By now you must be thinking that I am bewildered myself -- in some ways I am. In others I think the time has not come for the problem to be solved entirely, although enough clues have been given for students to do that when they are "ready." Ask yourself what would we do with the information if we were given it. How would it help us ethically ? would we live better lives, help more people, make life easier for the poor and the disadvantaged ? Where does the Theosophist need to work ? To acquire information is good, as study is needed to be accurate in the study of Karma and its many kinds of interactions. But have we acquired enough to help ourselves, and improve our personalities ? Are we learning how to assist others ? I ask these questions of myself as they appear to be important as Practical Theosophy -- of which HPB gives us so much in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. There is much in theosophy that explains and reconciles the obscure statements made in the earliest texts (such as have come down to us, usually in translation) from every major religion. That improves our trust in Theosophy, if anything. Next comes the ideas of Karma, reincarnation, our progressive learning, and the idea that if the Earth is one of the great Schools of mental and psychical adjustment, then the rest of the Universe has in each center of Life similar Schools working. But of what value to us is that information, which at best is speculative. Our work is here and now and concerns itself with our environment and circumstances. Perhaps that is why the First Object of the T S is Universal brotherhood: -- to establish a nucleus thereof. We are usually not totally convinced of the importance of that. Why not ? I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the kama-manasic condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" and it is here and now that we are dealing each one of us with his or her particular mix of Manas-Kama. If we as CONSCIOUSNESS were left without further reference points, we would be in a sorry state. But fortunately there is interior to us a Tutor, a Monitor, and Instructor: The HIGHER SELF, which is a living "ray" of the ONE UNIVERSAL AND IMPARTITE SPIRIT. As aspiring beings, seeking to learn of the laws of our world and of the improvement of ourselves and others in our families and communities, we have always THAT to appeal to for information and guidance. Is this not what Meditation is for ? Is the response not the Intuitions we gather to consider ? I realize that in trying to answer I have gone far afield, but do consider if some of the things I offer are useful in this. And, as we develop this line of search, we may perhaps uncover some further information. Let us then open the INDEX to the SD and see if the references there can give us more depth. Best wishes Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 5:18 PM > From: "Marshall Hemingway III" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >In a message dated 8/15/98 3:31:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >gschueler@netgsi.com writes: > ><< The Abyss itself is actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' >> > >It seems from the diagram on p. 346 in GdeP's FUNDAMENTALS >OF ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY that Globes A and G would be on >a higher plane of matter/energy. i.e., Lower Mental. Globes B and F >would be Astral, C and E would be Etheric and the Globe D would >be dense physical matter. This is how it's explained in Jinarajadasa's >FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THEOSOPHY on p. 226. Globes A and G >then would be Kama-Manasic but necessarily in the "abyss" as >would the dense physical globe D, a globe where we are all >struggling with dense physicality. The denser the matter the more >imprisoned is the Monad. This is truly abysmal compared to a >living on globes made of mental matter. I find therefore Purucker's >description of the two higher globes as "the Abyss" perplexing and >mystifying. Any thoughts on this, Dallas or Jerry ? > >Best wishes, >Sutratman > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 09:52:39 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:52:28 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <95486046.35d6f22e@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/16/98 9:52:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.n= et Dallas writes: << I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the Kama-Manasic condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" >> I thought we were on Globe D. ??? HPB says on p. 156 in Volume I The SD "the lowest globe of our planetary ring=97Globe D, our Earth.... " Also see the chart on p. 153 - very clearly indicated in Italic letteri= ng: D - OUR EARTH or any visible planet. A G B C C E = D =09=09=09=09=09=09=09 (earth)=09=09=09=09=09 Hence, assuming HPB is right in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, we are on Globe D, the densest globe of our Terrain Chain. The matter/substance here is the heaviest of all the globes, the others being of more rarefied and subtle matter/energy/vibration. Therefore, our struggle with the density of matter adds to our burden to evolve in consciousness. In future manvantaras we will be continuing our evolution on Globe G, a planet which is more refined in its substance, where matter will be less of a hindrance. My point, consequently, is that such a globe is a step higher, not the "abyss" as was described by GdeP. Hope this makes sense. Best Wishes, Sutratman From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 10:07:40 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:06:01 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Corrected Chart Message-ID: <45d4c954.35d6f55b@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/16/98 10:56:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=0ASutratman= @aol.com writes: << In a message dated 8/16/98 9:52:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nw= c.net Dallas writes: << I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the Kama-Manasic condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" >> I thought we were on Globe D. ??? HPB says on p. 156 in Volume I The SD "the lowest globe of our planetary ring=97Globe D, our Earth.... " Also see the chart on p. 153 - very clearly indicated in Italic letteri= ng: D - OUR EARTH or any visible planet. A G B F=09 C E = D =09=09=09=09=09=09=09 (earth)=09=09=09=09=09 =09=09=09=09=09=09=09 =09=09=09 Hence, assuming HPB is right in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, we are on Globe D, the densest globe of our Terrain Chain. The matter/substance here is the heaviest of all the globes, the others being of more rarefied and subtle matter/energy/vibration. Therefore, our struggle with the density of matter adds to our burden to evolve in consciousness. In future manvantaras we will be continuing our evolution on Globe G, a planet which is more refined in its substance, where matter will be less of a hindrance. My point, consequently, is that such a globe is a step higher, not the "abyss" as was described by GdeP. Hope this makes sense. (second post with corrected chart) Best Wishes, Sutratman From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 11:07:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:04:25 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <002301bdc92f$8b1fb9c0$237d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Well, aside from everyone missing the point as usual, my blood pressure is >finally getting back to normal which is doing wonders for my dizzy spells. > Missing the point seems to be everyone's point. >Sometimes I wonder if some of our friends on this list have real lives. My >girlfriend and I spent last evening in a cocktail lounge with about 85 of our >friends from an aol chat room and it would be safe to bet that not one person >in that room gave diddly about anything that has been discussed on this list, >yet they are pretty happy with their lives. > Yeah, I know some folks who are quite happy and they never even heard of Theosophy, reincarnation, or karma. >I am now convinced that the sure cure for overmuch Theosophy is going out and >getting stewed. > >Chuck > Also for overmuch of anything. I don't get stewed, but I do try to get out. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 11:17:30 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:06:21 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: #375 (sentiment vs. intellect) Message-ID: <738c00ef.35d7037e@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-15 18:47:45 EDT, you write: >In all seriousness, Chuck, I want to thank you for responding with "I don't >know" instead of providing me with some long-winded yakkity which serves to >try to make me feel ignorant and you too knowledgeable to discuss my points >(even though you just may be). Not to embarrass you, but, I consider it >very courageous. It is rare to come across someone who is not afraid to >plainly say "I don't know" (I, myself, fall into that trap many times >myself). > Thanks. The truth is I really don't claim to know all that much about the nature of the universe and I tend to get very bored after a while with people who think they do, especially when, like good Victorians, they start coming up with systems for other people to live under. >And I did miss your attempt at "reverse psychology" - that may be due to >the very suspicious nature I have developed while interacting on >theos-talk. Don't feel bad. I got caught up in the conversation and forgot that that was I was trying to do in the first place myself. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 11:22:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:25:05 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: No Blavatsky COMPLETE WORKS Message-Id: <199808161625.AA02253@lafn.org> >I believe it is in BLAVATSKY -- COMPLETE WORKS Only four volumes of HPB's COMPLETE WORKS were printed -- the last one in 1936. That was the end of the series. It has never been reprinted. There is now existing a COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB in 14 numbered volumes, plus the SD, ISIS, CAVES AND JUNGLES. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 11:37:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:30:51 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #375 Message-ID: <35D7093B.33F9B3F6@usa.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19980815184506.007a1a20@pophost.micron.net> Rilke wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > >My adopted daughter has absolutely no conscience. > >She has never, that we know of, felt regret, shame, guilt, or remorse. > >Her reaction to being caught doing something wrong is anger. She is > >not a lot of fun to live with, and all the research indicates that she will > >never develop a conscience at this late state (she is now 13). > Kym: > There were instances where I had to simply pin my sister down on the floor > and yell in her face repeatedly "I love you. I love you. I love you." > Often, I was met with spittle in my face. But I continually told her that > my love for her would not allow me to let her continue to react in a way > that threatened to hurt her and that her pain really was my pain, too. It seems you had the courage and magnanimity to confront her the love of your heart, although she did everything to antagonize you. I cannot help but admiring you for the way you handled it. It takes a whole lot of commitment to work with a person like this. Bjorn From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 11:48:15 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:35:22 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D70A4A.E067B834@usa.net> References: <007e01bdc7e3$a9941600$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > > To me, Theosophy is a knowledge thing, and not a belief thing. So you think Theosophical knowledge is possible without belief? Perhaps it is, but not in its more potent form. A person without belief/faith is a pretty powerless person. > > The use of an appelation such as "Maha Chohan 82" is gratuitous and an > insult to the condition and functions of a "Maha Chohan." You are really saying that you don't BELIEVE that this was dictated by the Maha Chohan. Fine with me. However, I believe it was. > Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does > not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does. Again, you are doing nothing more than stating your belief, without backing it up with anything substantial. > So I object to > anything so attributed [to the MC], realizing that it stems from the psychic rather than from the spritual planes. Again, you are stating your belief and I can state mine: "I am realizing that it stems from the spiritual rather than from the psychic planes." > A "spiritual" communication when deserved relates > to some reasonable and logical function of which the recipient is already > well aware and can fit the added information into what he already knows. > Further such messages are usually strictly private and are not to be > broadcast unless such is ordered as part of the message. See the MAHATMA > LETTERS for these conditions and restrictions. The masters have used many ways of communicating throughout the ages. Both public and private forms of communication have been used. The Prophets of Israel were delivering messages from their God quite publically, many times. > ======================================== > > >> If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a > nowhere > >> land. > > > >Then, please, explain also what is, in your opinion, so very "untheosophic" > >about these statements. > > ========================================= > > DALLAS : > > Persoanlly I have no particular fault with the statements but the reason WHY > does not seem to be given nor any link to karma offered. I only quoted one or two pages. Karma etc is being treated in many other places. > The situation > described is one that we all sense and does not need any special emphasis > that I can see. Often it is the job of those with a spiritual mission to remind people about things they know, or "should know", but may fail to apply. > > DALLAS: > > Misunderstanding of what I meant to say. > > It is that: our intuitions and spiritual communications from the HIGHER > SELF, being universal in scope have little to do with our personal > situations -- limited by our focus on personal desire. It is naturally the desire of the beings in higher spheres to see us succeed in transcending suffering and limitation. To provide pracical advice to us as to how to accomplish this makes a whole lot of sense to me. If they didn't, I would have a hard time believeing in their authenticity. Bjorn From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 11:52:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:49:24 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #375 Message-ID: <003501bdc935$d44ce220$237d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >This last year it came to be that I had to take in my sister (at the time, >16) who, by all appearances, exhibited the same reactions your daughter >does - only anger.... Kym, thanks for the encouragment. Love worked in your case because your sister was finally able to trust another person. I am still hopeful that my daughter will come around, but we meanwhile have a lot of extenuating problems to deal with. Because of my wife's cancer, we had to put our daughter in an institution for psychiatric evaluation and to give my wife some time to repair her body and soul. She has already been deemed unfit for foster care (a no-brainer) and will remain in a group home somewhere in the state until next spring. We may get her back eventually, especially if Betty is still around by next spring. I am very heartened to hear that things worked well for you and I agree that love is a powerful tool when it is sincere. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it is my love for Betty that holds her here today (statistically she has less than a 5% chance of living another year). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 12:02:46 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:40:26 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003001bdc934$93776640$237d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> ><< The Abyss itself is actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' >> > >It seems from the diagram on p. 346 in GdeP's FUNDAMENTALS >OF ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY that Globes A and G would be on >a higher plane of matter/energy. i.e., Lower Mental. Globes B and F >would be Astral, C and E would be Etheric and the Globe D would >be dense physical matter. This is how it's explained in Jinarajadasa's >FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THEOSOPHY on p. 226. We can play around with words, but I pretty much agree with this (I prefer A & G on the causal, B & F on the mental, C & E on the astral, and D on the physical). "Lower Mental" for the fourth plane really doesn't work well because there is no real thinking there -- its equivalent to a coma or dreamless sleep. > Globes A and G >then would be Kama-Manasic but necessarily in the "abyss" as >would the dense physical globe D, a globe where we are all >struggling with dense physicality. I didn't say A and G, but A' and G' (note the primes). Actually though, I think G de P used B' and F' (I don't have his books with me right now). The point I am making is that the Abyss is the third plane down or fifth up, and it, like all of the inner five planes, contains two Globes. >The denser the matter the more >imprisoned is the Monad. This sounds confusing to me but it is not your fault that the early Theosophical writers used "monad" too much. I prefer to think that there is only one real monad (indivisible unit) and that is the divine monad beyond our 7-plane solar system, and it does'nt feel imprisoned at all because its not--only its "ray" is. An interesting sidebar here is your use of the word imprisoned because Crowley taught that the only real sin is restriction of any kind. >This is truly abysmal compared to a >living on globes made of mental matter. I find therefore Purucker's >description of the two higher globes as "the Abyss" perplexing and >mystifying. Any thoughts on this, Dallas or Jerry ? > Whoa! G de P gave us the higher three planes with their upper 5 Globes, but he never used the term Abyss. The equation of fifth plane=Abyss is my own and I do it only to compare HPB's model with the Qabalistic Tree of ten Sephiroth. If we allow that Globes B' and F' (the two just above A and G, and lying in the fifth plane upward) are equivalent to Daath, then we have a remarkable similarity between HPB's model and the Tree of Life. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 12:07:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:52:44 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts Message-ID: <004001bdc936$4ae85900$237d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >I don`t know where all those uplifting thoughts come from. I haven`t >seen, or perceived in any other means either, anything or anybody, >thoughts just come. If you know, good for you. I just feel that I learn >more about myself and human nature as I live and communicate with my >fellow beings. These people are actually the 'best possible' teachers >for me right now. I was not born with clair-voyance abilities of any >kind and I am not going to practice anything that would get me those >things. I think I`m better off them, don`t know about the future. > > >Mika > HPB's teaching of nirmanakayas (a poor name, but her idea is good) tells us that such great Adepts stay on the inner planes in order to send loving and spiritual thoughts to us. All we have to do is listen or tune into them. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 12:22:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:15:17 -0400 From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Purucker Message-ID: <01bdc939$710df1a0$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dal writes: >Personally I have not adequately studied what de >Puruker has to say in >commentary on HPB's S D . I am therefore not well >qualified to argue = for or >against his views. But I have found HPB's to be >consistent. { What = little >of de Puruker's writings I have read have troubled me, >since in those = steno >reports of what he has given, he very often seems to >"talk down" to = his >audience, claiming that they neither have the erudition >nor the = capacity to >understand what he understands. Also he says in so >many words that = he will >give them what he considers they will understand. >Personally I would = not >stand for anyone making such a claim to my face. I am >annoyed by such = an >attitude as it neglects the fact that innate in each us is >precisely = that >"Sutratma" that is our individual link to the UNIVERSAL >SPIRIT, and >therefore to the same sources of Knowledge as he and >everyone else = has. If >our "Personalities" were not bound by the karma of our >past errors, we = would >be able to access the same source of Truth that is >ever-present around = us >all. I instinctively withdraw from anyone who makes >personal claims. ---------------------------------------------------- Honestly said, and I find it a bit irritating also - BUT I = think the context he has this attitude in is that he is also a student = of those who understand more than him, and that also he is putting the = credit or authority claim on the Grand Theosophical System, which he is = also a humble student of. His overall attitude is that he is involved = as a servent in a holy endeavor in his place as transmitting the = Teachings to those who know less than himself. Respect due him is = actually respect due the teachings, which he is giving. =20 Purucker's whole context is filled with a very Devotional = undertone of being involved in a sacred trust and sacred undertaking. = I don't find this real appealing to my own kind of nature, but on = principle can't object to it, and those with similar nature may find it = fine. It does get a little TOO much sometimes, and I think he errs in = this direction - but what the heck do I know.....! (and am more than = glad to put up with it to get the Theosophy.) The whole thing on "not making personal claims" is, I think, based = on the reality that any genuine spiritual stature is not based on any = quality of the personality, but on the Higher Self. The personality = doesn't have any spiritual qualities, anything spiritual comes from the = Non-personal and Universal - so the personal can't claim any spiritual = possessions at all. Personality destroys spiritual qualities. - Jake J. =20 From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 13:37:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 19:33:19 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D725EF.C1B741FF@bazzer.co.uk> References: <000f01bdc919$fc854640$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago. We are just > past the mid-way point in this Manvantara. [ Very few exact figures are > given to us in the SD. HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as > calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some > information we are yet to acquire. the figures given in SD II 68-70 she > says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time > indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60: > > as in 60 x 60 = 360; 360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000; and so on all multiples -- > but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES. First print of SD has the figure "60" 'missing' on page sixty. "These "Eternities" belong to the most secret calculations, in which, in order to arrive at the true total, every figure must be 7x (7 to the power of x); x varying according to the nature of the cycle in the subjective or real world; and every figure or number relating to, or representing all the different cycles from the greatest to the smallest - in the objective or unreal world - must necessarily be multiples of seven. The key to this cannot be given, for herein lies the mystery of esoteric calculations, and for the purposes of ordinary calculation it has no sense." (SD, I, 36). NB: 36 x 10 = 360; 3 + 6 + 0 = 9 etc.. Further on we find:- "The Three, the One, the Four, the One, the Five" (in their totality - twice seven) represent 31415 - the numerical hierarchy of the Dhyan-Chohans of various orders, and of the inner or circumscribed world. When placed on the boundary of the great circle of "Pass Not" (see Stanza V), called also the Dhyanipasa, the "rope of the Angels," the "rope" that hedges off the phenominal from the noumenal Kosmos, (not falling within the range of our present objective consciousness); this number, when not enlarged by permutation and expansion, is ever 31415 anagramatically and Kabalistically, being both the number of the circle and the mystic Svastica, the twice seven once more; for separately, one figure after another, whether crossways, from right or from left, they will always vield fourteen. Mathematecally they represent the well-known calculation, namely, that the ratio of the diameter to then circumference of a circle is as 1 to 3.1415, or the value of the [symbol of pi here] (pi), as this ratio is called - the symbol [symbol of pi here] being always used in mathematical forulae to express it. This set of figures must have the same meaning, since the 1:314,159, and then again 1:3:1,415,927 are worked out in the secret calculations to express the various cycles and ages of the "first born," or 311,040,000,000,000 with fractions, and yield the same 13,415 by a process we are not concerned with at present." (SD, I, 90/91). 3 x 1 x 4 x 1 x 5 = 60. SD, II, 621/622 states (NB: text in square brackets are italics in original and some words are larger):- "THE CIRCLE IS NOT THE "ONE" BUT THE ALL. IN THE HIGHER [heaven] THE IMPENETRABLE RAJAH ["ad bhutam," see Atharva-Veda" X., 105], IT [the Circle] BECOMES ONE, BECAUSE [it is] THE INDIVISIBLE, AND THERE CAN BE NO TAU IN IT. IN THE SECOND [of the three "Rajamsi" (triteye), or the three "Worlds"] THE ONE BECOMES TWO [male and female]; AND THREE [add the Son or logos]; AND THE SACRED FOUR ["tetractis", or the "Tetragrammaton."] IN THE THIRD [the lower world or our earth] THE NUMBER BECOMES FOUR, AND THREE, AND TWO. TAKE THE FIRST TWO, AND THOU WILT OBTAIN SEVEN, THE SACRED NUMBER OF LIFE; BLEND [the latter] WITH THE MIDDLE RAJAH, AND THOU WILT HAVE NINE, THE SACRED NUMBER OF BEING AND BECOMING".* No wonder we have problems getting Occultism to "add up"!:-) Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer) From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 14:22:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 15:08:18 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <006101bdc949$7589c280$237d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Personally I have not adequately studied what de Puruker has to say in >commentary on HPB's S D . I am therefore not well qualified to argue for or >against his views. But I have found HPB's to be consistent. { What little >of de Puruker's writings I have read have troubled me, since in those steno >reports of what he has given, he very often seems to "talk down" to his >audience, claiming that they neither have the erudition nor the capacity to >understand what he understands. OK, but HPB and her Masters do the same thing. They proclaimed that they only gave out so much of the occult teachings that we the public were ready for. Its pretty much the same thing. >I would therefore hesitate to say if his conclusions are right or wrong. Obviously its a subjective call. Personally, I like him very much. >But I would strongly urge that you independently correlate what HPB has to >say in SD ... G de P has been criticized for following HPB overmuch. He extends on her techings a little, but not much. Mostly he just elaborates on what she said. > >She (HPB) repeatedly says that both are ONE but in differentiation they >APPEAR to be separate. The third, the MIND unites both always, and is >perhaps the real CAUSE of all manifestation. > No perhaps about it. >What unites and comprehends them ? Is it not the 3rd evolutionary factor -- >the MIND. > I think it is. >If the MONAD (Atma-Buddhi) is an eternal/immortal UNIT of force having an >entitative existence -- as she says, then it is in terms of MATTER totally >imponderable. Hence it is incomprehensible except as an ideal, or a >"logical necessity." And it is the Mind-faculty that is able to encompass >this concept. > The "monad" when defined as atma-buddhi only lasts for one manvantara. Everything "entitive" has a beginning and an end according to Buddha. It is really "incomprehensible" only to the human mind. But consciousness can go beyond the mind and perceive atma-buddhi directly. >HPB says in several places that the REAL MATTER is not known to us. We have >no means from this plane to analyze it. But it can also be thought of. > I don't think that "real matter" is known even to modern science. Is it quarks? The jury is still out. When science thinks of real matter, it uses quantum physics, where most things exist in terms of probability waves. >What then is our present "reality ?" Is it not that which our present >mental faculties ( a mix of Buddhi, manas (higher and lower) and Kama >provide. > Our present reality is our worldview and nothing else. As our worldview changes, so our reality changes. >What then is our work in this stage of evolution ? Is it not to try to >grasp what we can of that which the Masters have offered to us ? > Yes. And if we can, to go beyond it. >Many who have written after HPB's death, trying to offer their >fellow-students such wisdom as they have acquired seem to also offer their >views and in some cases these are not "in line" with HPB's own statements >when these are careful correlated and brought together. > It doesn't always make any real difference. For example, I can't recall his name, but a past president of TSA almost died and later wrote a book on his experiences (Perkins?). Its a good book and I learned from it whether it exactly matches HPB or not. The main problem with HPB is that her terminology is antiquated and obscure by today's standards. We no longer spell Sanskrit terms like she did. We no longer know what she means in many places, and in valiant attempts to bring her message into modern English, we are criticized for not following exactly her letter. There is no easy answer here, but it seems to me that we have to go beyond her letter into her spirt if we want to get somewhere. >In my opinion before any good answer is to be given to your question, each >one of us ought to set down what WE HAVE FOUND OUT in our own studies of >HPB's (and Master's) writings. > I have found most to be in line with my own worldview, while a few things (like sex, for example) don't add up and are not born out in my experiences. I suspect that this is par for the course. >Its always my opinion in giving my views that those are invariably colored >by my own personal mix -- and therefore they ought not to be considered as >anything but a student's views -- seemingly coherent today, but liable to >modification tomorrow, should I find that I have neglected to consider some >vital factor. > You seem to be saying that your own experiences are worthless. I hope that I am mis-interpreting you. >In other words. We deal with a 7-fold Universe. Nature contains >everything. Nature is a living, dynamic and progressive WHOLE. When we >analyze it we, as 7-fold beings using our minds (partially wrapped in >Kama -- and therefore subject to error) may only see a partial view. > We will each continue forever to see only a partial view. What we see is what we have constructed for ourselves, and everything else does not exist for us. We have made nature, not the other way around. >If you think this is "hedging," then you are right. We have each of us the >faculty of inherent vision of the TRUE. But we are going to be expressing >it in terms of what we have learned and mastered in this personality, in >this life. It may, therefore be quite incomplete. > Oh, I can guarantee you that words will always be incomplete. >I regard all those who have written other than, or after HPB as being in the >same condition. hence, while I might avail myself of their views I would >not adopt them after much study. > When I slowly switched to Theosophy from Chrisitan Science, I carefully compared HPBs words with those of Eddy. When they didn't match, I went with Eddy, until my own experiences made me change to HPBs. It was a gradual process over some years, and at last I became a Theosophist. But I find myself today doing the same thing to HPB that I previously did to Eddy--realizing the wrongness of some remarks or thoughts, that just don't jive with my experiences. I could be wrong, but I think that this means I am growing. >For me, to cut the matter short, I would prefer going directly to HPB and >seeing what she has to say. I would not do this out of dogmatism or >fanaticism, but to make use of the so-far most accurate information that has >come my way. It is but natural that others may disagree with me. > No, I don't disagree. >Why not, then, try to apply the 7-fold division of Universal and Human >"principles" that HPB seems to have adopted ? > I do. I have. I will. >In the first 300 pages of the SD, Vol. 1 she shows, using the Stanzas from >the BOOK OF DZYAN , how Spirit involves itself progressively during the >first 3 Rounds into Matter. I note that the "builders" -- Dhyani Buddhas >and Dhyan Chohans which once were mind-men, and continue to be MIND BEINGS >work cooperatively in many diverse ways to bring about this gradual >immaterialization so that by the middle of the 4th Round one finds that the >time for the next crop of MONADS (which on our Earth are those that come >over from the Moon-chain) to have MANAS lit up in them. > Some of this stuff should not be taken literally. According to Buddhism (which both HPB and myself accord with) these "builders" are none other than ourselves. Basically, our own human karma created this world in all its splendor. >This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago. We are just >past the mid-way point in this Manvantara. [ Very few exact figures are >given to us in the SD. HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as >calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some >information we are yet to acquire. the figures given in SD II 68-70 she >says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time >indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60: > >as in 60 x 60 = 360; 360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000; and so on all multiples -- >but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES. > HPB, like a true magican, played games with numbers and gematria values. I enjoy doing this too. It stimulates the intuition, and as such is a good tool to use. But I wouldn't fall on my sword over the exact numbers. >So we are only given a theoretical sketch of the Rounds, Globes and Races, >etc....But those of us who are impatient desire to have things fixed in >time, space and as mental images -- so very often we desire a structure that >is quite rigid. As I see it the danger in that is that we may be starting >with wrong premises. > Its not just that we desire a rigid structure, but rather the human mind demands such for its sanity. Some kind of structure for our worldview that will logically explain our experiences is a valid necessity for mental health. >By now you must be thinking that I am bewildered myself -- in some ways I >am. In others I think the time has not come for the problem to be solved >entirely, although enough clues have been given for students to do that when >they are "ready." > We will all do this when ready, I agree. >Ask yourself what would we do with the information if we were given it. How >would it help us ethically ? would we live better lives, help more people, >make life easier for the poor and the disadvantaged ? Questioning our motives is our Theosophical duty. >There is much in theosophy that explains and reconciles the obscure >statements made in the earliest texts (such as have come down to us, usually >in translation) from every major religion. That improves our trust in >Theosophy, if anything. > Agreed. >Next comes the ideas of Karma, reincarnation, our progressive learning, and >the idea that if the Earth is one of the great Schools of mental and >psychical adjustment, then the rest of the Universe has in each center of >Life similar Schools working. But of what value to us is that information, >which at best is speculative. > Life as a school is valid during the Arc of Ascent, but not during the Arc of Descent. At the apex of the Arc, we will come to grips with the occult fact that we never really left in the first place. >Our work is here and now and concerns itself with our environment and >circumstances. Perhaps that is why the First Object of the T S is Universal >brotherhood: -- to establish a nucleus thereof. We are usually not totally >convinced of the importance of that. Why not ? > If we look at history, and at these Theosophical lists, one could submit that the TS's first object has yet to be met. >I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the kama-manasic >condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" and it is >here and now that we are dealing each one of us with his or her particular >mix of Manas-Kama. > Globes A and G represent the buddhi-manasic condition, and we are curently on Globe D. >... Is this not what Meditation is for ? Is the response not the >Intuitions we gather to consider ? > Yes. >Let us >then open the INDEX to the SD and see if the references there can give us >more depth. Lets rather look into our hearts and souls for the depth that we need. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 14:37:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:43:39 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya CORRECTION Message-ID: <003a01bdc94d$bbe8c1a0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 16th 1998 I just sent a posting to theos-talk in answer to a query from "Sutratma". AN ERROR HAS CREPT IN I meant to say we are at present on GLOBE D -- GLOBE D of the 4th ROUND If we refer to HPB's diagram in SD Vol. I p,. 200 it is the lowest of the globes on the lift side, and corresponds to the Kabalistic MALKUTH on the right hand side. ===================================== Looking closely at that diagram we see : Globe D is on the"4th plane" THE PHYSICAL MATERIAL WORLD and so too, is MALKUTH. Globes C and E are paired on the "3rd plane" THE SUBSTANTIAL OR FORMATIVE WORLD --- YESOD Globes B and F are paired on the "2nd plane" THE INTELLECTUAL OR CREATIVE WORLD --- TEPHEREH I note that HED and NETZAH seem to be halfway between the two planes and share in both Globes A and G are paired on the 1st plane THE ARCHETYPAL WORLD GEBURAH and CHESED correspond Above these is the outline of a triangle that encompasses 3 numbered planes. HPB says of them: "THE THREE HIGHER PLANES OF THE SEPTENARY KOSMOS. THE DIVINE AND FORMLESS WORLD OF SPIRIT (Arupa) "where form ceases to exist, on the objective plane." The following references may prove of interest: SD I 267, 434 II 759 SD I 205fn, 435, 232-3, 242, 574fn, SD II 92, 300, 318fn, 593, 697, 701, 759. Sorry for the inconvenience, Dal > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 6:56 AM > From: "Dallas TenBroeck" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 14:44:20 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:45:35 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003b01bdc94d$bd27aa40$03e78ccc@nwc.net> AUGUST 16TH 1998 YOU ARE ENTIRELY RIGHT -- I JUST SENT IN A CORRECTION BEFORE I READ THIS COMMENT. IT SHOULD BE "D" Dal > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 8:03 AM > From: "Marshall Hemingway III" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >In a message dated 8/16/98 9:52:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net >Dallas writes: > ><< I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the >Kama-Manasic condition, as HPB herself indicates we are >presently on Globe "G" >> > >I thought we were on Globe D. ??? HPB says on p. 156 in Volume I >The SD "the lowest globe of our planetary ring—Globe D, our Earth.... >" Also see the chart on p. 153 - very clearly indicated in Italic lettering: >D - OUR EARTH or any visible planet. > > > A G > > B C > > C E > > D > (earth) > >Hence, assuming HPB is right in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, we >are on Globe D, the densest globe of our Terrain Chain. The >matter/substance here is the heaviest of all the globes, the others >being of more rarefied and subtle matter/energy/vibration. >Therefore, our struggle with the density of matter adds to our >burden to evolve in consciousness. In future manvantaras we will >be continuing our evolution on Globe G, a planet which is more >refined in its substance, where matter will be less of a hindrance. >My point, consequently, is that such a globe is a step higher, >not the "abyss" as was described by GdeP. > >Hope this makes sense. > >Best Wishes, >Sutratman > > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 14:52:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:02:21 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya - THE ABYSS Message-ID: <003c01bdc94d$be4ca240$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 16th Re: the ABYSS Dear Jerry: Thanks for the help with the references. I had not "caught" that in my net so far. You are also right in surmising that I have not studied Kabala in depth, as I have been daunted by the statements that it has suffered much in translation. So since HPB (and the Masters behind her) draw on the "Oriental Kabala" from which the Jewish K. was framed, I have put in a lot of work on that. It makes a difference. Now I understand what you mean by "the abyss." It appears to be the first apparently disorganized primal condition of manifestation, when the Universe in "germ" emanates from the ABSOLUTENESS. In SD Vol. I HPB goes into detail showing what happens next -- how it gets organized under the karma of its past with the help of the Dhyani Buddhas and the Dhyan Chohans, "Builders," etc.... I put in some notes below Dal > Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 12:33 PM > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >>Dear Jerry: >> >>It seems clear that some comments on both sides are not melding. >> > >Why must they? > > >>Where does HPB describe any "Abyss ?" >> > >HPB writes: >"Exoterically it (i.e., the word 'Kshetra') means simply--"field," >while esoterically it represents "the great abyss" of the >Kabalists, the chaos and the plane (cteis or yoni), in which >the creative energy implants the germ of the manifested universe. >In other words they are the Purusha and Prakriti of Kapila, >the blind and cripple producing motion by their union, Purusha >supplying the head and Prakriti the limbs" (The Theosophist, >Vol V, No. 5(53). > >This short passage clearly indicates that she was well aware >of the Abyss of the Qabala (she would have had to). In the SD >she shows her cyclic Globes against the Qabalistic Sephiroth >and it is clear from that picture that the Abyss is located >at the top of the fourth plane. The only reason that I can give >for why Theosophists have been in the dark about the Abyss >all these years is that apparently they don't study much Qabala. >In the above passage, she indicates that the Abyss is actually >a cosmic yoni, and her sexual innuendo here is quite plain. I AGREE THAT IS SO FOR MYSELF > > >>In several places HPB indicates that all the effort done on this >>evolutionary side of manifestation (call it Mayavic if you will, since >>materially it is indeed not "permanent") is totally lost at the end of >>Manvantara ? [ Particularly this is brought out in her brief article ISIS >>UNVEILED AND THE VISISHTADWAITA -- "Theosophist" January 1886; ULT HPB >>ARTICLES III- 265 ] >> > >Why does your first sentence end with a question mark? NOT INTENTIONAL -- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELIDED BEFORE SENDING. I agree that something survives each manvantara--its called the divine Monad >and it survives because it is located outside of space-time and outside >of our 7-plane solar system. Theosophists like to imagine that even >the divine monad evolves, ================================ Dallas: I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT ENTIRELY. THERE IS A GROWTH OF AWARENESS AND THE USAGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THAT ASPECT OF THE MONAD (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) which is ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPING CONSCOUSNESS OF THE EVOLVING ENTITY -- to KAMA-MANAS as I understand it, butI could be wrong in this. My question here, is what is the purpose of the whole scheme if no accretions occur, if no "enlightenment" is the result of so much effort to achieve self-control, and self-purification, so that working with Nature and her Laws (Karma) becomes automatic and voluntary in the evolving entity ? How does this get answered ? What about all the SKANDHAS that are drawn together to form the "personality" each lifetime ? What happens to them ? They also improve, do they not ? Dal ============================================== but since it is outside of time, I can't see >how it, or anything else outside of time, can evolve (the word itself >means a progression over time and without time I cannot conceive >of any "progress"). > >I have already read HPB, Dallas, and I pretty much agree with her. >Your quotes are unnecessary. It is obviously your interpretation of >her writing that I have a problem with, as do you with mine. > >Jerry S. =================================== Thaks Jerry Dal =================================== > From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 14:55:54 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:39:40 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <003e01bdc94d$c179ed60$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 16th 1998 Dear Bjorn: Allow me to interject some comments below Dal > Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 3:19 PM > From: "Bjorn Roxendal" > Subject: Re: ECP Masters >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: >> >> To me, Theosophy is a knowledge thing, and not a belief thing. > >So you think Theosophical knowledge is possible without belief? Perhaps it is, >but not in its more potent form. A person without belief/faith is a pretty >powerless person. ====================================== DALLAS I don't think that the securing of "power" is the be-all and end-all of our living. If we study and learn and test and prove something we have "faith" or "belief" in our work and our memory of it. that kind of faith and belief I agree we should have. What I do object to is the unquestioning faith and belief of many who either trust all the read, or trust those who would impose their ideas on them for one reason or another. It is for this reason that I present ideas and reasonibgs and leave it to others to decide if they have any value. =============================================== >> >> The use of an appelation such as "Maha Chohan 82" is gratuitous and an >> insult to the condition and functions of a "Maha Chohan." > >You are really saying that you don't BELIEVE that this was dictated by the Maha >Chohan. Fine with me. However, I believe it was. ==================================================== DALLAS I would need far more than a declaration. When was it said, to whom was it said, under what crisis or circumstances was this siad ? Was it necessary to say it ? and to those persons ? When these questions are satisfactorily answerd the n I will give it some weight. But it seems tome tha it is a repetition on the main of what has been said before. So why the reminder ? =================================================== > >> Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does >> not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does. > >Again, you are doing nothing more than stating your belief, without backing it >up with anything substantial. > >> So I object to >> anything so attributed [to the MC], realizing that it stems from the psychic rather than from the spritual planes. > >Again, you are stating your belief and I can state mine: "I am realizing that it >stems from the spiritual rather than from the psychic planes." ================================== POSSIBLY TRUE. CAN YOU OR I VERIFY THIS ? ================================================= > >> A "spiritual" communication when deserved relates >> to some reasonable and logical function of which the recipient is already >> well aware and can fit the added information into what he already knows. >> Further such messages are usually strictly private and are not to be >> broadcast unless such is ordered as part of the message. See the MAHATMA >> LETTERS for these conditions and restrictions. > >The masters have used many ways of communicating throughout the ages. Both >public and private forms of communication have been used. The Prophets of Israel >were delivering messages from their God quite publically, many times. > ======================================== DALLAS Those are the claims made. Now can they be substantiated ? ========================================== >> >> If this is called Theosophy, someone is wandering pretty far into a >> nowhere >> >> land. >> > >> >Then, please, explain also what is, in your opinion, so very "untheosophic" >> >about these statements. >> >> ========================================= >> >> DALLAS : >> >> Persoanlly I have no particular fault with the statements but the reason WHY >> does not seem to be given nor any link to karma offered. > >I only quoted one or two pages. Karma etc is being treated in many other places. > >> The situation >> described is one that we all sense and does not need any special emphasis >> that I can see. > >Often it is the job of those with a spiritual mission to remind people about >things they know, or "should know", but may fail to apply. > >> >> DALLAS: >> >> Misunderstanding of what I meant to say. >> >> It is that: our intuitions and spiritual communications from the HIGHER >> SELF, being universal in scope have little to do with our personal >> situations -- limited by our focus on personal desire. > >It is naturally the desire of the beings in higher spheres to see us succeed in >transcending suffering and limitation. To provide pracical advice to us as to >how to accomplish this makes a whole lot of sense to me. If they didn't, I would >have a hard time believeing in their authenticity. > >Bjorn > ==================================== Dear Bjorn: It is not fair to you or t me to try and debate a statement such as that which is made. You note that I endorse that which is true and useful in it. But I question the necessity for attributing this to a "Maha Chohan" and especially the attachment of a NUMBER. That is highly curious. Best wishes. Dallas ============================== From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 14:59:28 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:29:40 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003d01bdc94d$bfa3f4e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 16th 1998 Dear Jerry: Allow me to interject some comments below Dal > Date: Saturday, August 15, 1998 12:36 PM > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >>There are many who believe that this life in this Personality is the only >>life we will ever live, and they act accordingly. Are they wrong, or just >>mistaken, because the effort to carry thought out of the personal into the >>Individual has not yet been mastered ? > >This life is, indeed, the only life that any personality will live. For the >ego, its a one-time deal. This is why the ego fears death--and rightly >so. ================================================ DALLAS The "thirst for life -- 'TANHA'" is said in Buddhist philosophy to be the cause for the fear of death. When the personal consciousness realizes that its conclusion at "death" is not its total and entire annihilation, it can perhaps breathe a little easier, and then begin to build a bridge of hope-consciousness that will extend through the "after-death states" -- Kamaloka and Devachan -- to its next life reassembage that marks a new beginning for all the "old stuff" now rejuvenated, energized and ready to go on further. Something like that occurs every morning when we reawake, but of course the physical body does not change much during the interval of its unconsciousness -- while the inner, the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS on the psychic and spiritual levels may be very active. [ HPB suggests and studies this in TRANSACTIONS, pp. 66 - 76 in the ULT edition of these. ] Such a view (including hope that one is not mistaken) seem to dampen anxiety -- at last for me. First one has to realize and accept the idea that death is inevitable -- in one way or another. [ Perhaps those who have had an NDE ---near death experience -- are better equipped than those who have not, in the sense that they know there is a continuing Egoity or Entity that survives the "death" of the present body/personality. ] =========================================== > >>What do we know that they don't ? The only tool we employ for this inner >>conviction of continuity is the idea of Egoity -- of a continuing Self (a >>"Spiritual Ahankara ?") which is the animus the energizer within. And we >>endow it mentally with the power to survive death. >> > >When I raise my consciousness to the Ego level, death seems silly >and I no longer fear it at all. When I return to my body, the certainty >of my own death scares the devil out of me. ============================================== DALLAS: I like that phrase that YOU raise by deliberate effort YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS to the EGOIC LEVEL As to why the personal consciousness is scared I do not know. Not my experience. But YOU theReal Man is the "boss." He uses by willing the tools that he is master of. =================================== > >>Using this as one of the arguments, the structure that we may construct as >a >>demonstration of reincarnation is supplemented from the records of the >>Adepts who as CONSCIOUS BEINGS have survived such changes and have >witnessed >>the changes that every human goes through after the death of this >>personality. At least that is how I see it. HPB speaks to this point in >>detail in the KEY. >> > >If the "records of the Adepts" makes you happy, then go for it, my friend. >It does help stimulate my intuition a bit, but the only thing that I have >found to really be helpful are my own transpersonal experiences. ================================================ DALLAS Mediative conclusions, and visions emerging from a nights' meditation may perhaps also be "transpersonal" -- if genuine they get us a memory that is not affected by the "psychic/personal" filter we use all the time when we are awake. But it is said that all intuitions and visions ought to be checked with the active mind for accuracy and their melding with philosophical and theosophical doctrines. ============================================= > > >>I used the term "thought men" to indicate an individual who thinks and uses >>the mind. >> > >OK. > >>If we "use the mind" then the mind is a tool of the Real Man. > >But it is also the "Slayer of the Real." The "Real Man" doesn't >need it or use it at all. The whole point or goal of yoga and >meditation is to go beyond the mind. > YES, BUT MANAS IS DUAL DEPENDING ON THE ORIENTATION WE GIVE TO IT. It is the "Lower Manas, immersed in Kama, that is the "Slayer of the REal." and that "real" is what filtes down to us from the plane of Buddhi-Manas, or the "Higher Mind." And as I understand it, that is not to be destoyed but rathe studied. ============================================ > > >You speak of >>rising above ratiocination, logic, etc., and the use of the mind -- perhaps >>this is intuition ? > >Yes, and also spirituality. ===================================== CERTAINLY -- BUT THIS IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM PSYCHIC PERCEPTIONS from THE ASTRAL PLANE IF WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT. ========================= > > >> I look at the "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali," which seem to >>throw the most comprehensive light on the functions of the mind and the >Self that uses it. It appears there that the various steps of self-discipline >>are quite explicit. >> > >I used these yogas too many years ago. I like them. But they are >pointing out a way or path, and they are not pointing out Truth. There >are, in fact, many ways and many paths. I agree on the need for >self-discipline, and this is true for any real spiritual path. ================================= TO ME THEY ARE TOOLS AND IEAS, NOT "YOGAS" HOWEVER THEY SEEM TO ASSUME THAT TRUTH IS A CONSTANT AND THAT IT IS THE OBJECT OF THE SEEKER. They seem to me to indicate the pathway of self-development that employs the mind as an instrument. In writing this booklet and in studying, a distinction is to be constantly made between the "Higher Mind" (Buddhi-Manas), and the "Lower Mind," ( Kama-Manas) -- and it is not always easy to do this. I DO NOT LIKE TO USE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHIC PRACTICES, BEING UNCERTAIN OF MY OWN CONTROL OF THEM, AS WELL AS UNCERTAIN OF THE PROFICIENCY OF AN "OPERATOR" (or "guru"). I have seen and heard of too many serious imparments of mind and body that have occurred after some misguided practices were used. So I am very cautious. First I want to understand. Did you ever read Bulwer-Lytton's ZANONI, or his other A STRANGE STORY ? If you hve you will know one of the reasons why I am so cautious. ================================ > >>As to a description of the relative functions and faculties of ATMA, >>BUDDHI, MANAS -- I have used the KEY as a base to study these and as well >>various statements found in the SD ( Vol. I 570-575) as an example. The >>positions, values and conditions of these faculties (principles) above or >>below some "Abyss" is not understood. > >No, but it will be when you experience all of this stuff. Until then you can >either take my word for it, or throw my words away. Its your choice. >Its actually all pretty dicey, because experiences above the Abyss >cannot be put into words and are formless. Its only later, after such >experiences, that the human mind puts words and forms to the experience >in an effort to come to grips with what happened as well as to communicate >with others. If my words are poorly chosen, I have to apologise. I am >doing my best. ======================================= DALLAS Agreed it is true that each has his own views. ===========================================> >> As I say above: where does HPB speak >>of an "Abyss ?" Why should there be one in a spherical UNIVERSE that has >no >>limits of extension ? > >Where did you get this idea? HPB clearly tells us that our 7-plane solar >system is only one of many, and is very limited. I don't recall anywhere >her saying that it is spherical, although it is in the sense that her Globes >make a circlular motion around the planetary chain. The Abyss itself is >actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' (names given by G de P). >Its the third plane downward, fifth upward. Without this plane and its two >Globes, we have ten Globes to exactly match the Qabalistic Tree. >While I am on this circular business, please note that life flows around >HPB's Earth planetary chain of Globes widdershins--exoterically the >direction of evil, and esoterically the direction of magic. Just one >insteresting sidenote that I discovered awhile back. ============================================= DALLAS As far as I am concerned I assumed that all plane page diagrams have always represented a volume in space. Hence the 7-fold "planes" that HPB uses in diagrams and tables ought to be viewed as volumes -- or "spheres." HPB in describing the Globes and their inter-relation says in one place that they ought to be considered as in "coadunition, but not in consubstantiality." Consciousness (as I understand it) opearates spherically and is not limited to a flat plane or to "linearity." Hence if there is an "Abyss" using the Kabalistic word idea, then it may be a laya center (perhaps a sphere ?) a passage between two planes, which under karma exists for the transfer from one to the other, and may also indicate a null point where adjustments are made under nature's Laws. If we consider that Nature contains all and is our great Teacher, then we are all assured of eventually reaching a complete understanding of all her secrets. But, many of us are in a hurry, and think we can get them in "3 minutes and a half, while standing on one leg." as the old saying goes. Looking again at page 200, Vol. 1, SD, It occurs to me that HPB must have a reason for omitting the 3 missing Sephiroth, although she gives them their due place in other sections of the book. The TRIANGLE that embraces the undescribed planes is placed in balance over the two sides of the diagram. It may be that de Puruker sought to bring in those three Sephiroth into that Diagram in a way which satisfied his conclusions. But that to me has not been a matter of importance. I also refer to SD II 590 - 605 (where she goes into the mystery of the IAO) and, 611- 627, 630 - 641. ============================================= > >>As you say our understanding of what Theosophy teaches may seem to be at >>variance, and we may have approached it by different paths and therefore >use >>terms that either of us are not completely familiar with -- so we agree in >>some things and seem to disagree in others, but as I see it, we both profit >>from the encounter, and I can certainly see that there are further depths >to >>be plumbed for me. >> >>Thanks for your consideration. >> >>Best wishes as always, >> >>Dallas >> > >Thank you, Dallas. I appreciate your zeal and enthusiasm. Hopefully we >will help each other here. > >Jerry S. ========================================= GOOD, I AM ENJOYING THIS. Thanks Dal. ================================== From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 15:52:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:41:42 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Keynotes of Theosophy Message-Id: <199808162041.AA18201@lafn.org> Harmony, Sacrifice, Devotion Can you not live so as to feel the great throbbing heart around you, so as to express that feeling in even the smallest detail? Let there be nothing cold or cynical in your view of life. Sense the pathos and the pity of it, trusting that some day to your now darkened eyes the mystery and the pain will be untangled. Feel, feel, with everything that cries, with everything that suffers, and in the most broken fragments of a life find some beauty. Let your own quivering heartstrings teach you the anguish in other hearts and live to ease it. Pain is our best teacher. Do not dread nor flee her therefore, she comes in mercy. Go forth to meet her, trembling, perhaps, but reverently, patiently, unflinching; only so can the lesson be learned, and from the dark hours spent with her, a light shall arise, showing the way to stumbling feet, giving the power to comfort and console. And in the peace of that, your heart shall understand and be satisfied. Harmony, sacrifice devotion, take these for keynotes, express them everywhere and in the highest possible way. The beauty of a life like that, the power of it, who can set measure or set bounds to. Those who know and love you can always see it, and it may also be shining in some other heart which as yet has no light of its own. The Lodge waits and watches ever, ever works -- think you not we have patience? -- and those who serve us must do the same. You are right, no detail is overlooked. Life is made up of details, each a step in the ladder, therefore who shall dare say they are small. We are closer than you know, and love and thought brings us still nearer. Kill out doubt which rises within; that is not yourself, you know. The doubt is a *maya*, cast it aside. Listen not to its voice which whispers low, working on your lack of self-confidence. Therefore I say, have neither vanity nor self-depreciation. If you are the Higher Self, you are all that is great, but since your daily consciousness is far, far below, look at the matter impartially and frankly. Vex yourself not with contradictions. You know that you must stand alone; *stand* therefore. If you have patience and devotion you will understand these things, especially if you think much of them and meditate on them, for you have no conception of the *power of meditation.* Closer insight gives heavier responsibility -- do not forget that -- and a responsibility which affects others more than it does yourself. See to it, then, that the outer does not obscure the inner, for your lamp must be carried aloft for others to see, or not seeing it, to continually feel. Do not confuse the outer with the inner, therefore, though the outer be full and rich, remember it is so because of the inner *shining through*, and look ever back to that which shines. No sorrow, no disappointment lie there, but a fullness of realization of which you have no conception and a power and strength which shall lift you above these confusions to a sure place of your own. You have been too harsh with your lower nature, that leads to dangerous reactions. Quiet, steady effort is far better, casting aside all thoughts of results. Treat your mind as a child, lead it firmly but gently and in all ways and at all times strengthen your faith. [A fragment attributed to WQ Judge by one who knew him. Quoted in ~William Quan Judge~, pp. 95-96; compiled by Sven Eek and Boris de Zirkoff. Title added by NW.] -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 16:37:37 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 15:31:54 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D74FCA.68189FF2@usa.net> References: <006101bdc949$7589c280$237d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > > When I slowly switched to Theosophy from Chrisitan Science, I carefully > compared HPBs words with those of Eddy. When they didn't match, I > went with Eddy, until my own experiences made me change to HPBs. > It was a gradual process over some years, and at last I became a > Theosophist. But I find myself today doing the same thing to HPB that > I previously did to Eddy--realizing the wrongness of some remarks > or thoughts, that just don't jive with my experiences. I could be wrong, > but I think that this means I am growing. I hope so, for this is exactly how things are progressing for me as well. I have the utmost respect for HPB and her writings, but I find it naive and idolatrous to assume that what she said is the perfect and final word on issues. Bjorn From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 16:52:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:47:04 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: No Blavatsky COMPLETE WORKS Message-ID: <35D75358.69763F09@sprynet.com> References: <199808161625.AA02253@lafn.org> Nicholas Weeks wrote: > > >I believe it is in BLAVATSKY -- COMPLETE WORKS > > Only four volumes of HPB's COMPLETE WORKS were printed -- the last one in > 1936. That was the end of the series. It has never been reprinted. > > There is now existing a COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB in 14 numbered volumes, > plus the SD, ISIS, CAVES AND JUNGLES. Plus THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (completed by others and published posthumously), and NIGHTMARE TALES. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 17:07:39 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:00:54 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: ECP Masters Message-ID: <35D75696.C6F94B6B@usa.net> References: <003e01bdc94d$c179ed60$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > What I do object to is the unquestioning faith and belief of many who either > trust all the read, I agree. Please realize that there are tons and tons of statements in the SD that are impossible for anyone of us to prove or disprove. I think it is unhealthy to take all of that on blind faith, too. > DALLAS (re the dactation caimed to be given by the Maha Chohan) > > I would need far more than a declaration. When was it said, to whom was it > said, under what crisis or circumstances was this siad ? Was it necessary > to say it ? and to those persons ? When these questions are satisfactorily > answerd the n I will give it some weight. I won't argue with you regarding your need for answers per the above. To be honest about it, I can't say from my own direct and irrefutable experience that I KNOW this was the Maha Chohan speaking. My experience when being present at these dictations is that of "spiritual reality" and "authenticity". I also find that there is a considerable infusion of my being with higher spiritual energies and that I find the content of the dictations to make sense (which others disagree with). >But it seems tome tha it is a > repetition on the main of what has been said before. So why the reminder ? Great spiritual teachers have usually repeated that which has been said before. HPB officially declares that she is doing the same. In one case (HPB) you find no fault with the repetition and reminders (after all, "brotherhood" was hardly a new invention of HPB's, yet she talked a lot about it), in another you maintain that repetition does not make sense. Why do we need these reminders? Well, Dallas, is not the answer pretty obvious - we tend to forget or pretend to forget. We need to be reminded about the value of universal brotherhood until we have realized it, and beyond, lest we forget again, to give you one example. ECP has even publicly declared that it is an important part of her job to remind us of that which we already know. > =================================================== > > > >> Anyone who has the audacity to employ such a designation does > >> not know what a "Maha Chohan" is or does. > > > >Again, you are doing nothing more than stating your belief, without backing > it > >up with anything substantial. > > > >> So I object to > >> anything so attributed [to the MC], realizing that it stems from the > psychic rather than from the spritual planes. > > > >Again, you are stating your belief and I can state mine: "I am realizing > that it > >stems from the spiritual rather than from the psychic planes." > ================================== > > POSSIBLY TRUE. CAN YOU OR I VERIFY THIS ? No, that was my point. It is really rather futile to argue against experience. If I see a tree in front of me and somebody comes along and says - you don't see a tree, you are actually hallucinating, will I believe him or will I believe my perceptions? In this case, I see a tree and you don't, and there is not easy way to prove that it is there or isn't. I recommend the practicing of the universal brotherhood idea, and basic theosophical principles: "Theosophist is, who theosophy does" (HPB). To me, it matters little, if you agree with me or not regarding ECP's authenticity as a messenger. It matters more where our hearts are and what we do for our fellow men. > ================================================= > >The masters have used many ways of communicating throughout the ages. Both > >public and private forms of communication have been used. The Prophets of > Israel > >were delivering messages from their God quite publically, many times. > > > ======================================== > DALLAS > Those are the claims made. Now can they be substantiated ? Not objectively, only by individual confirmation in the core of ones own being. > ========================================== > > Dear Bjorn: > > It is not fair to you or t me to try and debate a statement such as that > which is made. You note that I endorse that which is true and useful in it. > But I question the necessity for attributing this to a "Maha Chohan" and > especially the attachment of a NUMBER. That is highly curious. If there is a "necessity" to attribute a dictation by the Maha Chohan to the Maha Chohan I don't know, but it makes sense that when I write something I sign it with my name, and when I give messages to others, that I let them know where they came from. Perhaps the Maha Chohan feels the same way. Regarding the number, "82", I explained in an earlier answer that the 82 was only something I added to refer to the year, 1982, when this dictation was given. Sorry for not being more clear about this originally. Bjorn From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 18:22:38 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:26:34 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <001e01bdc96d$72f02180$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 16th 1998 Dear Jerry: Yes HPB and the Masters who endorsed her writings gave out enough of the information that has kept us all busy so far. I am well aware that I am not able to encompass all in this life-time. As for myself, what I intend to make clear is that I know only a very small amount of what can be known. I am also aware that in presenting this to others to consider I ought to make them aware of my limitations. To invoke their attention and careful sifting of meaning is only fair to them. Looking at what HPB writes and thinking about it one might say that it is probable that the MONAD survives as an intelligent and conscious UNIT even Maha-Pralayas. I have asked myself what basis would exist if and when a new Maha-Manvantara starts, and my logical mind tells me that there has to be a "residue" a spiritual "something" that emerges to organize and to establish a program on and through which the whole educational scheme rebegins. Now if this is not the result of the past, what is it ? I subscribe to the idea that "out of nothing, NOTHING comes." HPB always desired that we should get beyond the surface "words" so as to secure the meanings that are behind them. But, as far as I am concerned this gives me no license to think that I am in any position to transcend her. I would look at anyone who made any such claim as one who had not fathomed what HPB did or was. and that is my personal opinion of course. My experiences are not "worthless" nor are the basis for claiming any authority. I would say that the rest of you comments I would agree to in general, with a few modification to perhaps satisfy only my limitations. Thanks again, and best wishes. Dal > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 12:33 PM > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >>Personally I have not adequately studied what de Puruker has to say in >>commentary on HPB's S D . I am therefore not well qualified to argue for >or >>against his views. But I have found HPB's to be consistent. { What little >>of de Puruker's writings I have read have troubled me, since in those steno >>reports of what he has given, he very often seems to "talk down" to his >>audience, claiming that they neither have the erudition nor the capacity to >>understand what he understands. > >OK, but HPB and her Masters do the same thing. They proclaimed that >they only gave out so much of the occult teachings that we the public >were ready for. Its pretty much the same thing. > > >>I would therefore hesitate to say if his conclusions are right or wrong. > > >Obviously its a subjective call. Personally, I like him very much. > > >>But I would strongly urge that you independently correlate what HPB has to >>say in SD ... > >G de P has been criticized for following HPB overmuch. He extends >on her techings a little, but not much. Mostly he just elaborates on >what she said. > >> >>She (HPB) repeatedly says that both are ONE but in differentiation they >>APPEAR to be separate. The third, the MIND unites both always, and is >>perhaps the real CAUSE of all manifestation. >> > >No perhaps about it. > > >>What unites and comprehends them ? Is it not the 3rd evolutionary >factor -- >>the MIND. >> > >I think it is. > > >>If the MONAD (Atma-Buddhi) is an eternal/immortal UNIT of force having an >>entitative existence -- as she says, then it is in terms of MATTER totally >>imponderable. Hence it is incomprehensible except as an ideal, or a >>"logical necessity." And it is the Mind-faculty that is able to encompass >>this concept. >> > >The "monad" when defined as atma-buddhi only lasts for one manvantara. >Everything "entitive" has a beginning and an end according to Buddha. >It is really "incomprehensible" only to the human mind. But consciousness >can go beyond the mind and perceive atma-buddhi directly. > > >>HPB says in several places that the REAL MATTER is not known to us. We >have >>no means from this plane to analyze it. But it can also be thought of. >> > >I don't think that "real matter" is known even to modern science. Is it >quarks? >The jury is still out. When science thinks of real matter, it uses quantum >physics, where most things exist in terms of probability waves. > > >>What then is our present "reality ?" Is it not that which our present >>mental faculties ( a mix of Buddhi, manas (higher and lower) and Kama >>provide. >> > >Our present reality is our worldview and nothing else. As our worldview >changes, so our reality changes. > > >>What then is our work in this stage of evolution ? Is it not to try to >>grasp what we can of that which the Masters have offered to us ? >> > >Yes. And if we can, to go beyond it. > > >>Many who have written after HPB's death, trying to offer their >>fellow-students such wisdom as they have acquired seem to also offer their >>views and in some cases these are not "in line" with HPB's own statements >>when these are careful correlated and brought together. >> > >It doesn't always make any real difference. For example, I can't recall >his name, but a past president of TSA almost died and later wrote a >book on his experiences (Perkins?). Its a good book and I learned >from it whether it exactly matches HPB or not. The main problem with >HPB is that her terminology is antiquated and obscure by today's standards. >We no longer spell Sanskrit terms like she did. We no longer know what >she means in many places, and in valiant attempts to bring her message >into modern English, we are criticized for not following exactly her letter. >There is no easy answer here, but it seems to me that we have to go >beyond her letter into her spirt if we want to get somewhere. > > >>In my opinion before any good answer is to be given to your question, each >>one of us ought to set down what WE HAVE FOUND OUT in our own studies of >>HPB's (and Master's) writings. >> > >I have found most to be in line with my own worldview, while a few >things (like sex, for example) don't add up and are not born out in my >experiences. I suspect that this is par for the course. > > >>Its always my opinion in giving my views that those are invariably colored >>by my own personal mix -- and therefore they ought not to be considered as >>anything but a student's views -- seemingly coherent today, but liable to >>modification tomorrow, should I find that I have neglected to consider some >>vital factor. >> > >You seem to be saying that your own experiences are worthless. I hope >that I am mis-interpreting you. > > >>In other words. We deal with a 7-fold Universe. Nature contains >>everything. Nature is a living, dynamic and progressive WHOLE. When we >>analyze it we, as 7-fold beings using our minds (partially wrapped in >>Kama -- and therefore subject to error) may only see a partial view. >> > >We will each continue forever to see only a partial view. What we see >is what we have constructed for ourselves, and everything else does >not exist for us. We have made nature, not the other way around. > > >>If you think this is "hedging," then you are right. We have each of us the >>faculty of inherent vision of the TRUE. But we are going to be expressing >>it in terms of what we have learned and mastered in this personality, in >>this life. It may, therefore be quite incomplete. >> > >Oh, I can guarantee you that words will always be incomplete. > > >>I regard all those who have written other than, or after HPB as being in >the >>same condition. hence, while I might avail myself of their views I would >>not adopt them after much study. >> > >When I slowly switched to Theosophy from Chrisitan Science, I carefully >compared HPBs words with those of Eddy. When they didn't match, I >went with Eddy, until my own experiences made me change to HPBs. >It was a gradual process over some years, and at last I became a >Theosophist. But I find myself today doing the same thing to HPB that >I previously did to Eddy--realizing the wrongness of some remarks >or thoughts, that just don't jive with my experiences. I could be wrong, >but I think that this means I am growing. > > >>For me, to cut the matter short, I would prefer going directly to HPB and >>seeing what she has to say. I would not do this out of dogmatism or >>fanaticism, but to make use of the so-far most accurate information that >has >>come my way. It is but natural that others may disagree with me. >> > >No, I don't disagree. > > >>Why not, then, try to apply the 7-fold division of Universal and Human >>"principles" that HPB seems to have adopted ? >> > >I do. I have. I will. > > >>In the first 300 pages of the SD, Vol. 1 she shows, using the Stanzas from >>the BOOK OF DZYAN , how Spirit involves itself progressively during the >>first 3 Rounds into Matter. I note that the "builders" -- Dhyani Buddhas >>and Dhyan Chohans which once were mind-men, and continue to be MIND BEINGS >>work cooperatively in many diverse ways to bring about this gradual >>immaterialization so that by the middle of the 4th Round one finds that >the >>time for the next crop of MONADS (which on our Earth are those that come >>over from the Moon-chain) to have MANAS lit up in them. >> > >Some of this stuff should not be taken literally. According to Buddhism >(which both HPB and myself accord with) these "builders" are none >other than ourselves. Basically, our own human karma created this >world in all its splendor. > > >>This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago. We are just >>past the mid-way point in this Manvantara. [ Very few exact figures are >>given to us in the SD. HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as >>calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some >>information we are yet to acquire. the figures given in SD II 68-70 she >>says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time >>indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60: >> >>as in 60 x 60 = 360; 360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000; and so on all multiples -- >>but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES. >> > >HPB, like a true magican, played games with numbers and gematria values. >I enjoy doing this too. It stimulates the intuition, and as such is a good >tool to use. But I wouldn't fall on my sword over the exact numbers. > > >>So we are only given a theoretical sketch of the Rounds, Globes and Races, >>etc....But those of us who are impatient desire to have things fixed in >>time, space and as mental images -- so very often we desire a structure >that >>is quite rigid. As I see it the danger in that is that we may be starting >>with wrong premises. >> > >Its not just that we desire a rigid structure, but rather the human >mind demands such for its sanity. Some kind of structure for our >worldview that will logically explain our experiences is a valid >necessity for mental health. > > >>By now you must be thinking that I am bewildered myself -- in some ways I >>am. In others I think the time has not come for the problem to be solved >>entirely, although enough clues have been given for students to do that >when >>they are "ready." >> > >We will all do this when ready, I agree. > > >>Ask yourself what would we do with the information if we were given it. >How >>would it help us ethically ? would we live better lives, help more people, >>make life easier for the poor and the disadvantaged ? > >Questioning our motives is our Theosophical duty. > > >>There is much in theosophy that explains and reconciles the obscure >>statements made in the earliest texts (such as have come down to us, >usually >>in translation) from every major religion. That improves our trust in >>Theosophy, if anything. >> > >Agreed. > >>Next comes the ideas of Karma, reincarnation, our progressive learning, and >>the idea that if the Earth is one of the great Schools of mental and >>psychical adjustment, then the rest of the Universe has in each center of >>Life similar Schools working. But of what value to us is that information, >>which at best is speculative. >> > >Life as a school is valid during the Arc of Ascent, but not during the >Arc of Descent. At the apex of the Arc, we will come to grips >with the occult fact that we never really left in the first place. > > >>Our work is here and now and concerns itself with our environment and >>circumstances. Perhaps that is why the First Object of the T S is >Universal >>brotherhood: -- to establish a nucleus thereof. We are usually not >totally >>convinced of the importance of that. Why not ? >> > >If we look at history, and at these Theosophical lists, one could submit >that the TS's first object has yet to be met. > > >>I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the kama-manasic >>condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" and it is >>here and now that we are dealing each one of us with his or her particular >>mix of Manas-Kama. >> > >Globes A and G represent the buddhi-manasic condition, and we are >curently on Globe D. > > >>... Is this not what Meditation is for ? Is the response not the >>Intuitions we gather to consider ? >> > >Yes. > >>Let us >>then open the INDEX to the SD and see if the references there can give us >>more depth. > >Lets rather look into our hearts and souls for the depth that we need. > >Jerry S. > > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 18:38:48 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:13:01 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: No Blavatsky COMPLETE WORKS Message-Id: <199808162313.AA16658@lafn.org> > >Nicholas Weeks wrote: >> >> >I believe it is in BLAVATSKY -- COMPLETE WORKS >> >> Only four volumes of HPB's COMPLETE WORKS were printed -- the last one in >> 1936. That was the end of the series. It has never been reprinted. >> >> There is now existing a COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB in 14 numbered volumes, >> plus the SD, ISIS, CAVES AND JUNGLES. Bart: > Plus THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (completed by others and published >posthumously), and NIGHTMARE TALES. These are not part of the Blavatsky: COLLECTED WRITINGS series. This title is published by one publisher, TPH - with one compiler, Boris de Zirkoff. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 19:23:59 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:09:39 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: No Blavatsky COMPLETE WORKS Message-ID: <35D774C3.766518B5@sprynet.com> References: <199808162313.AA16658@lafn.org> Nicholas Weeks wrote: > >> There is now existing a COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB in 14 numbered volumes, > >> plus the SD, ISIS, CAVES AND JUNGLES. > > Bart: > > Plus THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (completed by others and published > >posthumously), and NIGHTMARE TALES. > > These are not part of the Blavatsky: COLLECTED WRITINGS series. This > title is published by one publisher, TPH - with one compiler, Boris de > Zirkoff. Sorry; I misunderstood what you were saying. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 20:42:13 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:31:03 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Blavatsky books Message-ID: <29d0b94b.35d787d8@aol.com> Bart quotes and writes: >>Only four volumes of HPB's COMPLETE WORKS were printed -- the last one in >> 1936. That was the end of the series. It has never been reprinted. >> There is now existing a COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB in 14 numbered >volumes, >> plus the SD, ISIS, CAVES AND JUNGLES. > Plus THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (completed by others and published >posthumously), and NIGHTMARE TALES. ------------------------------------------------------- And don't forget THE PEOPLE OF THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ( a really interesting account by Blavatsky) and BLAVATSKY LETTERS TO SINNETT (posthumous) and also the invaluable BCW XV INDEX to top off the BCW. - Jake J. From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 21:27:56 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:20:47 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #377 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980816202047.007a1b70@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808161400.JAA06245@proteus.imagiware.com> Mika wrote: >I don`t know where all those uplifting thoughts come from. I haven`t >seen, or perceived in any other means either, anything or anybody, >thoughts just come. If you know, good for you. I don't know either from where uplifting thoughts come from nor, for that matter, where not-so-uplifting thoughts come from. It would seem if I were to attribute uplifting thoughts to "messages from loving Discarnate Beings" I would have to also, to be consistent, contribute negative thoughts as being from "unloving Discarnate Beings." >I just feel that I learn >more about myself and human nature as I live and communicate with my >fellow beings. These people are actually the 'best possible' teachers >for me right now. I have found that to apply to me also. I prefer viewing spirituality in "action." I'm embarrassed to quote a movie - but, in the film "Forrest Gump" his mother said that "Stupid is as stupid does." Well, to me, "spirituality is as spirituality does." Words are abundant and can easily be masked to hide a hardened heart, however, most humans have a more difficult time hiding such a hardened heart when it comes to their actions; a person's actions will eventually reveal what it is they really believe and think. Those humans who believe in Compassion and then actually live and practice it, are to me, the greatest Teachers and Inspirers. >I was not born with clair-voyance abilities of any >kind and I am not going to practice anything that would get me those >things. I think I`m better off them, don`t know about the future. With all science has discovered about the human mind and its frailties (and its powers), any visions or "voices" I perceived would immediately be subject to my personal doubt and scrutiny. Did the "messages" come from a spiritual entity, my wishful thinking, or simply bad mutton? I could never be sure, so I find the absence of them more beneficial than not - although, to be honest, I am sometimes envious of those who claim a "direct link" to other spiritual planes. But, then again, I invariably begin to wonder if there are documented mental breakdowns in their past. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 21:44:44 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:32:30 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #375 Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-16 12:56:48 EDT, you write: > I am convinced beyond reasonable >doubt that it is my love for Betty that holds her here today (statistically >she has less than a 5% chance of living another year). > >Jerry S. You have my sympathy and I'm setting up one of my machines right now. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 21:51:53 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:28:27 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <72449083.35d7954c@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-16 12:11:36 EDT, you write: >Yeah, I know some folks who are quite happy and they never even >heard of Theosophy, reincarnation, or karma. > > Actually most of the folks I know have heard of them, but being either members of the OTO or Chaos Magicians they don't take them very seriously. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 21:57:39 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:33:44 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #377 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980816203344.007a1b70@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808161400.JAA06245@proteus.imagiware.com> Regarding digests #377 and 378: To Bjorn and Dallas: Thank you, Bjorn, for your very kind words and recognition. It meant alot to me and I deeply appreciate it. And, I wish to thank you also, Dallas, for your gracious post to me. Since you had the words "magnificent" and "you [meaning me]" in the same sentence in that post, I will let your breaking of my rule (you ain't supposed to be talking to me) slide this once. Kym From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 23:00:51 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:49:05 -0500 From: "Govert Schuller Subject: Re: two levels of messages Message-ID: <002201bdc992$04fadec0$b80b9cd1@wilma> Thank you, Eldon, for expressing this point so well. I sometimes use the word 'evocative' often to describe the effect of dictations, specially when heard live or on video. A while ago I posted a transformative experience in connection with a dictation by Jesus, which I'll paste at the end. Govert > From: "Eldon B Tucker" >Apart from the value of the ideas, the importance of the >materials we're sharing or teaching, there may be an attempt >to take someone with one into a lofty, spiritual state of >mind. When doing this, the particular ideas being discussed >aren't as important as the aura, the radiance, the *suchness* >of the thought atmosphere that one is functioning in and >sharing with others. This has to do with the *space* that >one arrives at in ones inner work, when taking further steps >beyond the intellectual brain-mind study of the texts. >From a 4/8/98 posting: "I vividly remember the first time it really struck me that Prophet was genuine. This was during a Summit Lighthouse conference in Lisbon, Portugal. The first dictations had some impact on me, but because of the veil in my consciousness created by all kinds of expectations and images the experience became somewhat blurred. During the third dictation I was not present in the theater where the dictation took place, but I was in the hall as an ‘outside usher’ and was able to hear the message. The program had indicated that the Ascended Master Jesus would address us. Initially I was not giving much attention and was more enjoying the peace and quiet of the empty but sun-lit hallway. In this state of mind, without expectations and a minimum of images going through my head, I suddenly tuned into the meaning of the words spoken. What I heard was so deep, so wise, so enveloping and loving that my mind and soul were immediately transported to a higher realm of consciousness. My senses still informed me that I was where I was, but my awareness was of the level of divine wisdom and I realized I was listening to Jesus actually speaking. It was not Mrs. Prophet, though it was her voice, but it was the sweet and stern Adept of Galilee. I would deny myself if I would deny my conviction that this was genuine. That I had a personal and most intimate experience of listening to a Master taking over the vocal cords of a physical human being." From ???@??? Sun Aug 16 23:28:04 1998 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:15:40 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: The Absolute Message-ID: <35D7AE6C.D2F3B112@usa.net> References: <2b48644a.34c1a4cf@aol.com> I found this old reply to Brenda regarding the Absolute in my draft folder. Brenda S. Tucker wrote: > > As we develop, we will make substitutes for these > concepts which will take on many additional pockets of truth. Yes, and I think it is very important not only to learn the concepts that are in the SD etc, but also to contemplate, meditate and gain our own realization. "New realization" can be more valuable than "old knowledge". > > > >1. The uncreated > >2. The created > > Isn't this HPB's manifest and unmanifest? It seems so, yes. To me, emphasizing that certain realities exist before and independant of creation was important for my own understanding, therefor I used the words "uncreated" and "created". I think this is something we can gain from contemplating - that life never was created as such - meditate on the uncreated aspects(s). At least that has led to substantial realization for myself. > >The intellect may challenge the concept of "uncreated existence". Doesn't > everything that exists have > >a cause? Again, I wanted to stress that Life, existence is uncreated, creation is almost like a "byproduct", albeit an imortant one. > The original Creator cannot be created, because there wouldn't > >be anything/anybody to create it/him/her. > > This is your introduction of a third thing which I imagine you would > include in the unmanifest category. But isn't our Creator included in both > categories? The Creator uses part of its own body to give us life. Yes, that is what i was saying, too. And to make the Creator more "understandable" I called him/her/it "the Word" which we can think of as the "movement behind all movement". > That which is before creation is Unconditioned Abstract Space and > Unconditioned Abstract Motion. Fine, for those who feel these concepts have meaning to them. > There is an eastern trinty of existence, consciousness and bliss. These > three would not constitute the absolute though, just something unmanifest > because the unmanifest and uncreated does exist, doesn't it? Yes, "existence" may well be the same as the absolute, but consciousness is the selfawareness of existence, which can only arise through a relationship between a polarity. And "bliss" may well be the feeling quality that is inherent in this "pure" consciousness. > It would seem a lot safer to me if we just associate the first two abstract > concepts that issue forth during manvantara: space and motion. I see these as the first most basic aspects of creation. Maybe that's what you are saying also. Bjorn From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 06:24:05 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:18:58 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003901bdc9d0$f086f980$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 17th 1998 Dear Jerry: Many thanks for the additional explanations. Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 10:10 AM > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >><< The Abyss itself is actually the plane containing Globes A' and G' >> >> >>It seems from the diagram on p. 346 in GdeP's FUNDAMENTALS >>OF ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY that Globes A and G would be on >>a higher plane of matter/energy. i.e., Lower Mental. Globes B and F >>would be Astral, C and E would be Etheric and the Globe D would >>be dense physical matter. This is how it's explained in Jinarajadasa's >>FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THEOSOPHY on p. 226. > >We can play around with words, but I pretty much agree with this (I prefer >A & G on the causal, B & F on the mental, C & E on the astral, and D on >the physical). "Lower Mental" for the fourth plane really doesn't work >well because there is no real thinking there -- its equivalent to a coma >or dreamless sleep. > >> Globes A and G >>then would be Kama-Manasic but necessarily in the "abyss" as >>would the dense physical globe D, a globe where we are all >>struggling with dense physicality. > >I didn't say A and G, but A' and G' (note the primes). Actually though, >I think G de P used B' and F' (I don't have his books with me right now). >The point I am making is that the Abyss is the third plane down or >fifth up, and it, like all of the inner five planes, contains two Globes. > > >>The denser the matter the more >>imprisoned is the Monad. > >This sounds confusing to me but it is not your fault that the early >Theosophical writers used "monad" too much. I prefer to think that >there is only one real monad (indivisible unit) and that is the divine >monad beyond our 7-plane solar system, and it does'nt feel imprisoned >at all because its not--only its "ray" is. An interesting sidebar here >is your use of the word imprisoned because Crowley taught that >the only real sin is restriction of any kind. > >>This is truly abysmal compared to a >>living on globes made of mental matter. I find therefore Purucker's >>description of the two higher globes as "the Abyss" perplexing and >>mystifying. Any thoughts on this, Dallas or Jerry ? >> > >Whoa! G de P gave us the higher three planes with their >upper 5 Globes, but he never used the term Abyss. The equation >of fifth plane=Abyss is my own and I do it only to compare HPB's >model with the Qabalistic Tree of ten Sephiroth. If we allow that >Globes B' and F' (the two just above A and G, and lying in the fifth >plane upward) are equivalent to Daath, then we have a remarkable >similarity between HPB's model and the Tree of Life. > >Jerry S. > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 06:27:52 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:16:46 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003801bdc9d0$ef1ede00$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 17th 1998 Dear Paul: Many thanks -- I learn more interesting things. Isn't the inter-relation of numbers and ratios a valuable tool ? Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 11:49 AM > From: "Bazzer (Paul)" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > >> This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago. We are just >> past the mid-way point in this Manvantara. [ Very few exact figures are >> given to us in the SD. HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as >> calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some >> information we are yet to acquire. the figures given in SD II 68-70 she >> says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time >> indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60: >> >> as in 60 x 60 = 360; 360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000; and so on all multiples -- >> but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES. > >First print of SD has the figure "60" 'missing' on page sixty. > >"These "Eternities" belong to the most secret calculations, in which, in >order to arrive at the true total, every figure must be 7x (7 to the >power of x); x varying according to the nature of the cycle in the >subjective or real world; and every figure or number relating to, or >representing all the different cycles from the greatest to the smallest >- in the objective or unreal world - must necessarily be multiples of >seven. The key to this cannot be given, for herein lies the mystery of >esoteric calculations, and for the purposes of ordinary calculation it >has no sense." (SD, I, 36). NB: 36 x 10 = 360; 3 + 6 + 0 = 9 etc.. > >Further on we find:- > >"The Three, the One, the Four, the One, the Five" (in their totality - >twice seven) represent 31415 - the numerical hierarchy of the >Dhyan-Chohans of various orders, and of the inner or circumscribed >world. When placed on the boundary of the great circle of "Pass Not" >(see Stanza V), called also the Dhyanipasa, the "rope of the Angels," >the "rope" that hedges off the phenominal from the noumenal Kosmos, (not >falling within the range of our present objective consciousness); this >number, when not enlarged by permutation and expansion, is ever 31415 >anagramatically and Kabalistically, being both the number of the circle >and the mystic Svastica, the twice seven once more; for separately, one >figure after another, whether crossways, from right or from left, they >will always vield fourteen. Mathematecally they represent the >well-known calculation, namely, that the ratio of the diameter to then >circumference of a circle is as 1 to 3.1415, or the value of the [symbol >of pi here] (pi), as this ratio is called - the symbol [symbol of pi >here] being always used in mathematical forulae to express it. This set >of figures must have the same meaning, since the 1:314,159, and then >again 1:3:1,415,927 are worked out in the secret calculations to express >the various cycles and ages of the "first born," or 311,040,000,000,000 >with fractions, and yield the same 13,415 by a process we are not >concerned with at present." (SD, I, 90/91). > >3 x 1 x 4 x 1 x 5 = 60. > >SD, II, 621/622 states (NB: text in square brackets are italics in >original and some words are larger):- > >"THE CIRCLE IS NOT THE "ONE" BUT THE ALL. >IN THE HIGHER [heaven] THE IMPENETRABLE RAJAH ["ad bhutam," see >Atharva-Veda" X., 105], IT [the Circle] BECOMES ONE, BECAUSE [it is] THE >INDIVISIBLE, AND THERE CAN BE NO TAU IN IT. >IN THE SECOND [of the three "Rajamsi" (triteye), or the three "Worlds"] >THE ONE BECOMES TWO [male and female]; AND THREE [add the Son or logos]; >AND THE SACRED FOUR ["tetractis", or the "Tetragrammaton."] >IN THE THIRD [the lower world or our earth] THE NUMBER BECOMES FOUR, AND >THREE, AND TWO. TAKE THE FIRST TWO, AND THOU WILT OBTAIN SEVEN, THE >SACRED NUMBER OF LIFE; BLEND [the latter] WITH THE MIDDLE RAJAH, AND >THOU WILT HAVE NINE, THE SACRED NUMBER OF BEING AND BECOMING".* > >No wonder we have problems getting Occultism to "add up"!:-) > >Best wishes, >Paul (Bazzer) > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 07:09:04 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:07:16 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <21985282.35d81cf5@aol.com> In a message dated 8/16/98 1:06:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: << he never used the term Abyss >> My mistake. I thought you meant GdeP said that. Regards Sutratman From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 07:39:03 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:26:48 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <6e4c93dc.35d82189@aol.com> In a message dated 8/16/98 2:41:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bazzer@bazzer.co.uk writes: << No wonder we have problems getting Occultism to "add up"!:-) >> Some feel that mathematics can be the gateway to the higher planes - Swedenborg and Rudolph Steiner were mathematicians, to say nothing of Pythagorus. Einstein was a student of The Secret Doctrine (always kept a copy on his desk, according to his secretary). Sutratman From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 07:54:03 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:41:26 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: In a message dated 8/16/98 3:26:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: << . For example, I can't recall his name, but a past president of TSA almost died and later wrote a book on his experiences (Perkins?). >> THROUGH DEATH TO REBIRTH by James Perkins TPH ISBN 0-8356-0451-9 James Perkins was also an artist. His book VISUAL MEDITATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE contains 34 color plates of his art work, symbolic visualizations of theosophical themes. These visions are undoubtedly a carry-over from a very profound OBE which occurred when he was almost killed in a car crash. Regards, Sutratman From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 10:18:26 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:07:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: HPB's eclecticism Message-Id: <199808171507.LAA14045@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Daniel, your post allows plenty of material to discuss in the effort to clarify what I mean by "full doctrine on a silver platter"-- which is the naive interpretation of how HPB received her ideas from her adept teachers. Whether or not you would adhere to such an interpretation is a litmus test of Theosophical fundamentalism. Perhaps my explanation of the issue of eclectism vs. pure transmission of a unitary body of doctrine will help you define your own position. Retracing our steps: I quoted a passage in which HPB states that the doctrines of the SD are found scattered in many other texts. You blamed me for not appending the next part: "The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement if what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and observation." You say this conveys the "whole message conveyed in the entire paragraph" but what you take that message to be does not coincide with what I see there. HPB could be entirely eclectic, that is building up a systematic body of doctrines out of multiple traditional sources, without its contradicting the above passage in the slightest. All she is saying above is that almost every doctrine taught in the book was not original with her, but came from "more advanced students" who taught her. There is no claim in this passage that these more advanced students were all part of one outward organization, all knew one another, all taught and learned the same identical body of doctrines. Elsewhere you may find passages that imply such a claim, but I can counter with at least an equal number that present HPB's relationships with her living teachers in a different light-- as connections with different traditions exemplified by people in different parts of the world who did not know one another. So let's not resort to "proof texts" as that leads nowhere. Suffice it to observe that there are two levels of claims in the literature, one of which I find confirmable in history, the other of which looks highly suspicious to anyone with knowledge of religious history and occult legends. Level #1: "I learned virtually everything from experts in occult doctrines, and have done little innovating or modification." OK, not hard to accept in light of how many experts she can be seen to have known. Level #2: "and all these elements in my writings are in fact part of a single occult tradition which is preserved secretly in various places around the globe but which is a unitary body of knowledge that has existed as such for very long periods of time." Attached to this are claims about Senzar, cave libraries, international telepathic communication networks, etc. *Not* OK, there's no credible evidence for this and the overwhelming judgment of scholarship would be that such a thing is not just unproven but extremely implausible. When you refer to "isolated" adepts she may have known, that misrepresents my thought, since the adept mentors I write about are linked in various kinds of "lodges"-- Masonic, Hindu, Sikh-- and HPB is getting *traditions* through them, not just the ideas of individuals. But she is getting *separate traditions*, with whatever commentary on their interconnections her sources might have provided, and integrating them herself. You may be right that "full doctrine on a silver platter" is a caricature of what HPB and the adepts claimed. But it is a naive view that is widely assumed in the Theosophical movement and clearly underlies the things Dallas was saying in his discussion with Kym. Some of your quotes are irrelevant to the issue at hand. That HPB knew "Eastern adepts" and studied "their science" does not necessarily mean that all their knowledge was a single science. If she said she had known "philosophers" and studied "their discipline" would that mean there was only one philosophy to be studied rather than an eclectic assortment? When you talk about the fundamental truths of all that we are permitted to know on earth (quoting from Isis) and "one unbroken chain around the globe" which was a "universal freemasonry of science and philosophy" I think it important to note that at one level a historical claim is being made here. That should be subject to all the same criteria of evidence that any such claim would be, and comes up mighty short as a literal thing. But at a mythical level, whatever we humans deeply know because it is inherent in our being does give a certain consistency and coherence to the widest range of spiritual teachings in diverse places. So talk of a "universal freemasonry of science and philosophy" can have a certain symbolic inner truth even though it refers to historical circumstances that never existed-- or at least cannot be shown to have existed by evidence that would persuade scholars. Cheers, PJ From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 12:40:47 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:38:35 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <001301bdca06$09bc6cc0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 17th 1998 Dear "Sutratma" I have collated a number of interesting references and definitions of "Occultism." If you are interested, let me know and I can send you a "hard copy" as I am not yet set up (after the crashes) to send it through Email. Dallas > Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 5:48 AM > From: "Marshall Hemingway III" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >In a message dated 8/16/98 2:41:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >bazzer@bazzer.co.uk writes: > ><< No wonder we have problems getting Occultism to "add up"!:-) >> > >Some feel that mathematics can be the gateway to the higher planes - >Swedenborg and Rudolph Steiner were mathematicians, to say nothing >of Pythagorus. Einstein was a student of The Secret Doctrine (always >kept a copy on his desk, according to his secretary). > >Sutratman > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 12:55:47 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:55:53 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: HPB's eclecticism Message-ID: <35D86EA9.3085@azstarnet.com> References: <199808171507.LAA14045@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Thanks Paul for your email below. When I have some breathing room, I will attempt to reply to your points. You bring up some good points and I hope other Theos-talk subscribers will mull over your words and possibily post their own replies. Daniel K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Daniel, your post allows plenty of material to discuss in the > effort to clarify what I mean by "full doctrine on a silver > platter"-- which is the naive interpretation of how HPB received > her ideas from her adept teachers. Whether or not you would > adhere to such an interpretation is a litmus test of Theosophical > fundamentalism. Perhaps my explanation of the issue of eclectism > vs. pure transmission of a unitary body of doctrine will help you > define your own position. Retracing our steps: I quoted a passage > in which HPB states that the doctrines of the SD are found > scattered in many other texts. You blamed me for not appending > the next part: "The sole advantage which the writer has over her > predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal > speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement > if what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, > supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own > study and observation." You say this conveys the "whole message > conveyed in the entire paragraph" but what you take that message > to be does not coincide with what I see there. > > HPB could be entirely eclectic, that is building up a systematic > body of doctrines out of multiple traditional sources, without > its contradicting the above passage in the slightest. All she is > saying above is that almost every doctrine taught in the book was > not original with her, but came from "more advanced students" who > taught her. There is no claim in this passage that these more advanced > students were all part of one outward organization, all knew one another, > all taught and learned the same identical body of doctrines. > Elsewhere you may find passages that imply such a claim, but I > can counter with at least an equal number that present HPB's > relationships with her living teachers in a different light-- as > connections with different traditions exemplified by people in > different parts of the world who did not know one another. So > let's not resort to "proof texts" as that leads nowhere. Suffice > it to observe that there are two levels of claims in the > literature, one of which I find confirmable in history, the other > of which looks highly suspicious to anyone with knowledge of > religious history and occult legends. Level #1: "I learned > virtually everything from experts in occult doctrines, and have > done little innovating or modification." OK, not hard to accept > in light of how many experts she can be seen to have known. > Level #2: "and all these elements in my writings are in fact part > of a single occult tradition which is preserved secretly in > various places around the globe but which is a unitary body of > knowledge that has existed as such for very long periods of > time." Attached to this are claims about Senzar, cave libraries, > international telepathic communication networks, etc. > *Not* OK, there's no credible evidence for this and the > overwhelming judgment of scholarship would be that such a thing > is not just unproven but extremely implausible. > > When you refer to "isolated" adepts she may have known, that > misrepresents my thought, since the adept mentors I write about > are linked in various kinds of "lodges"-- Masonic, Hindu, Sikh-- > and HPB is getting *traditions* through them, not just the ideas > of individuals. But she is getting *separate traditions*, with > whatever commentary on their interconnections her sources might > have provided, and integrating them herself. > > You may be right that "full doctrine on a silver platter" is a > caricature of what HPB and the adepts claimed. But it is a naive > view that is widely assumed in the Theosophical movement and > clearly underlies the things Dallas was saying in his discussion > with Kym. > > Some of your quotes are irrelevant to the issue at hand. That > HPB knew "Eastern adepts" and studied "their science" does not > necessarily mean that all their knowledge was a single science. > If she said she had known "philosophers" and studied "their > discipline" would that mean there was only one philosophy to be > studied rather than an eclectic assortment? When you talk about > the fundamental truths of all that we are permitted to know on > earth (quoting from Isis) and "one unbroken chain around the > globe" which was a "universal freemasonry of science and > philosophy" I think it important to note that at one level a > historical claim is being made here. That should be subject to > all the same criteria of evidence that any such claim would be, > and comes up mighty short as a literal thing. But at a mythical > level, whatever we humans deeply know because it is inherent in > our being does give a certain consistency and coherence to the > widest range of spiritual teachings in diverse places. So talk > of a "universal freemasonry of science and philosophy" can have a > certain symbolic inner truth even though it refers to historical > circumstances that never existed-- or at least cannot be shown to > have existed by evidence that would persuade scholars. > > Cheers, > From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 13:10:47 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:29:38 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D86882.F234DF6C@bazzer.co.uk> References: <6e4c93dc.35d82189@aol.com> Sutratman@aol.com wrote: > Einstein was a student of The Secret Doctrine (always > kept a copy on his desk, according to his secretary). That's interesting. Thank you. Best wishes, Paul (Bazzer) From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 13:21:32 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:04:39 +0100 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D870B7.9DAA0907@bazzer.co.uk> References: <003801bdc9d0$ef1ede00$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Dallas wrote: > Isn't the inter-relation of numbers and ratios a valuable tool ? What is the meaning of "number" in the context of our studies? Is it symbolic of Hierarchies, Cycles, Beings, states of Consciousness? What is the meaning of "ratio"? An attempt at an example might be: There is the Fifth Principle, and the Fifth Hierarchy, and the Fifth Root Race, and the Fifth Round, and the Fifth Globe etc. etc.. What is the "ratio" (inter-relation, maybe?) between these? What is the "ratio" between fifth principle of the average human being and Fifth Principle of a Master? What is the "ratio" between a Master and Chohan, or a Master and an ant? Ad infinitum. All good wishes, Paul (Bazzer) From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 15:07:37 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:06:21 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Motorin' to the Masters Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980817140621.007a5380@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> Sutratman wrote: >Some feel that mathematics can be the gateway to the higher planes - I can understand mathematics revealing a pattern in things and thus offering the opportunity for one to believe that there is some kind of "Cosmic consistency and law" further opening up a person to justifiably wonder if there really is a purpose-filled Consciousness "who" formulated a rational, logical structure to the universe. For some, this would be all the proof one would need to conclude that "God" surely does exist. However, just because someone is privy to the blueprints of the foundation of a building doesn't mean they can tell you what is inside the building. There is also the possibility that the "blueprints" were formulated by a 'lowly' Cosmic engineer who may have merely gotten the stamp of approval from the "Biggest Wig" - hence, the universe is not "really" the work of God. Moreover, in what way would mathematics provide a person access to a "gateway to the higher planes?" One could build a machine to possibly take one there, but that would be using the "outer" rather than the "inner" to approach the "higher planes." From what's been said on this list, even if we did manage to build something to crash into the house of a "Master" there's no evidence that he/she would even acknowledge us and he/she may just simply call the authorities accompanied by demands that your time-machine license be revoked. Kym From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 16:22:38 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:17:25 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Schools, and angel elementals Message-ID: <29d443a5.35d89de7@aol.com> Comment on Paul J's comments: If one talks separately about Bill, Joan, and Suzy a hundred times to someone else and doesn't mention that they each know each other, then you can't assume that they do. If one mentions just Once that they all know each other, that is enough evidence to establish forever after that they do. If Blavatsky mentions just once that all the adepts of a certain level that she knew are part of a Brotherhood, then that is sufficient evidence to prove forever after - if one believes she told the truth - that there is a Brotherhood of Adepts. It doesn't matter if she mentions separate Adepts a hundred times again without mentioning the fact. K.H. mentions in the Mahatma Letters the he and Morya had different methods of teaching - which would probably indicate that all adepts do, which would also probably indicate that they were of different traditions, schools within traditions, or no "tradition" proper at all. So the fact that there are different traditions isn't evidence in itself that there isn't an overal unifiying school of thought and Brotherhood (which doesn't mean that ALL adepts or occultists Blavatsky knew were memers of it.) Swooning advocates of Chanellers: I wonder if you guys - mostly Govert and Bjorn it seems - think it is possible for a powerful messmeric force, via a dugpa, black adept or ???? make you feel "high as a kite" and seemingly spiritually inspired by your own succeptibility and its own mesmeric power? Could a powerful hypnotist or mesmerizer induce whatever emotion in you that he wanted? Is this Possible????? There are strong emotional states that simulate spiritual states or insights, but are not. Too me, I double-check with my reason and mind to determine the source. To get "high" from a non-rational source (and these chanellings are not rationally synchronous with original Adept sources.....) would make me suspect as to if I was being duped (but as the song goes: "If it feels this good being used - Use me Up!" And they do too!) I get "high" sometimes from reading Blavatsky - and it is because I come across something that produces a REASONABLE and RATIONAL insight. It causes me to understand something, and the corresponding emotion follows. The mind should lead the emotions. For the emotions to lead the mind (it feels good so it must be true....) is degrading. In the relative world there are demonic forces and elementals (which produce the corresponding emotions) and there are angelic forces and elementals (which produce the corresponding emotions.) Both are emotion- states and sub-human, and it is degrading for the human to submit himself to forces inferior to himself....... - Jake J. ("He who yells into the void.") From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 18:37:47 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:18:45 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Schools, and angel elementals Message-ID: <59b3c69c.35d8ba56@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-17 17:26:51 EDT, you write: >Swooning advocates of Chanellers: I wonder if you guys - mostly Govert and >Bjorn it seems - think it is possible for a powerful messmeric force, via a >dugpa, black adept or ???? make you feel "high as a kite" and seemingly >spiritually inspired by your own succeptibility and its own mesmeric power? >Could a powerful hypnotist or mesmerizer induce whatever emotion in you that >he wanted? >Is this Possible????? It certainly is possible, in fact at the weekly social gathering of a group of young magicians I frequent it is a common little trick played on people at the other tables in the restaurant. It's just a matter of getting the emotion of choice really going in yourself and then blasting it at the solar plexus chakras of everyone you want to influence. Chuck From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 18:42:59 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:01:04 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- bad idea Message-ID: <020701bdca36$15630ea0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 17th 1998 Thanks for your views and comments on the possibility of the T S being a "Mystery School." { Issued in your posting of Aug. 2nd -- that I have only just now read. ] May I add the following observations: If you look carefully at what has been published, starting with HPB, you will realize that much offered as Theosophy by that pioneer writer dispelled the vagueness surrounding the old Mystery Schools and revealed the concepts and secrets of Nature that had been held so "secret" by them. With the single exception of Plato, no one in the West has offered any approximation to a complete philosophy prior to HPB's THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Plato's writing are most carefully veiled on the subject of initiation, even though one finds him using its symbolisms. The SECRET DOCTRINE published over 2,000 years later, and the work of the modern Theosophical Movement, addresses the scientific thought of our developing time, as we transit from the influences of the Picean into the Aquarian Age. If one were to contrast the two epochs one might observe that the age of Plato was as deficient in a general use of science as our age is deficient in philosophy. What does Theosophy deal with ? Consider with me some of its range: METAPHYSICS first engage our attention: The vast and indefinable area of SPIRIT, idealism, symbolized by SPACE -- that is illimitable, undefinable -- and which contains everything that is manifested or non-manifest. DURATION in which all periods of time reside. From the greatest to the smallest cycle of vibration. INTELLIGENCE as a necessity for interactive and cooperative LIFE -- and this includes all aspects, known and unknown of consciousness. EVOLUTION as a concept, includes every level, degree or peculiarity of organized life. It observes that an enormous set of many kinds of relationships exist. It conceives of "Nature" as the be-all and end-all of the constantly changing (Maya) that denotes progress and the alterations of improvement; or, of retrogression and the sufferings of those who contribute to such distress. Is our present not a witness to this in operation and is not our instant news and communications constantly bringing the sad state of affairs to our attention -- even though our marvelous civilized and scientific developments provide us with remedies, we do not employ them with diligence. Why should there be famine in Somalia and the floods in china -- who helps those people if their "governments" are incapable ? Why was genocide permitted in Burundi and a second revolution in as many years allowed in the Congo? The SOUL, that which is the ANIMATING CENTER of every being is held to be an Immortal. Every human is aid to be endowed with the Soul. In addition, every being without exception is held to have a SPIRITUAL SPARK at its core. Nothing ever "dies" as a UNIT OF LIFE, although its sheaths or vehicles cease to cohere after some time and change, dissipate and reform around it in fresh configurations. And we say: a new babe is born. The rules and laws inherent in Nature guide these events, whether they be the birth and evolution of Worlds, Galaxies, men or molecules. KARMA rules the greatest cycles as well as the most minute. In cooperation with the innate intelligence of all beings it directs the condition and place where they (as unit intelligences) will be able to do the most good for the whole. MANKIND represents a special condition to which every Unit-Intelligence eventually arrives. That condition is the cross roads of evolutionary development. The mind faculty is evoked, lit up by those Mind-beings who have already passed through that condition successfully. With the mental faculty being "lit up," independence of choice ensues. Further development is entirely self-induced and self-guided. REINCARNATION of the Human Soul is the natural process whereby it improves over successive lives in its understanding of its work and responsibilities in Nature. CIVILIZATIONS rise and fall. The society of savages lives concurrent to and often within the framework of the most elaborate examples of achievement. True civilization is a moral balance. When this is destroyed a civilization destroys itself and savagery spreads wide over its ruins. Look around us at the sudden ( in the last 80 years) urbanization of almost all the countries of the world. The farm lands are abandoned for the pleasures and ease of city-life. Small community skills and support dwindles and is almost dead. Agri-business is a new condition, and should a cataclysm -- earthquakes, floods, droughts sweep suddenly (as has "El Nino" in this past year ) over vast sections of the world, who would first suffer ? The city dwellers. They are rare among them who still have a base in agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry and personal self-sufficiency skills. We are in a most vulnerable condition and we are not aware of it. MOTIVE rules our future. The circumstances we meet in life, our abilities and disabilities, our talents or the lack of talent all are the result of the self-discipline we impose on ourselves, either in the past or the present. Our Future is linked to our present and to our past. There are secret and powerful forces and energies in nature. We can learn about them only when we will not abuse them. Magic is a Science and an art. [ see ISIS UNVEILED II pp. 587--592 ] Magical powers are the same for the White or the Black Magician. The motive behind their use makes the difference in the two kinds of Magic. [ see HPB article PRACTICAL OCCULTISM. HPB Articles II, p. 92 -- ULT edition ] Nature does not permit abuses. It brings to those who abuse eventually, the results of that abuse so that they will experience it themselves. Thus they learn not to abuse their power to learn and employ Nature's secrets. The states of sleep and dreams, of trances and visions; the states after death and the return of the Soul to a new body -- all that is discussed and detailed as doctrines in Theosophy. The commencement of this World of ours in the Galaxy which is the home of the whole immeasurable UNIVERSE is discussed. The undying Race of the WISE among men is revealed as an ever-existent group of the well-wishers and preservers of human knowledge and wisdom. They are always in the world, working with it, and are usually anonymous and unknown in their work. We are shown how mankind as it develops, can, and has to adopt, BROTHERHOOD as the only true basis for real and permanent progress. Nature is educative and not punitive. "The hands that smite us are our own." This is a rule for everyone No Prayer or petition can cause the ONE JUST LAW to deviate from its course, and we always receive the just desert of our thoughts, feelings and actions. Nature's justice demands that the victim receive due restitution from the oppressor. Man's psychology is that of an immortal who is developing a CONSCIOUSNESS of that power as an active force in his own nature today. He is enveloped not only in physical matter, but in psychic (emotional and desire) matter. An "astral body" is the lattice work on which the physical atoms arrange themselves. Each man has a resident "god." The HIGHER SELF, (Or SPIRITUAL SOUL ) It is the tutor and inner monitor of our living and warns through the Intuition and the voice of conscience if we are deviating from that which is truly valuable in our life-work. Now these are only a small fraction of the bits of knowledge which Theosophy covers. Is this not what we gather from the few small bits of information concerning the MYSTERY SCHOOLS ? And to cap it all Theosophy shows how the entire Universe forms a living whole, and we and everything else in it has its due and proper place. Is this not the reason why we devote time to the consideration of the information and wisdom to be found in Theosophical literature ? And where else can we glean it in it primitive condition save through HPB's original writings ? Olcott had the greatest opportunity in working with HPB from the very start, and it is sad that he apparently did not support her fully after the SPR Report by Hodgson was published. If one reads HPB's LETTERS TO A.P.Sinnett one finds that she was aware of the change and identified it. Later in 1888, approaching Europe on board the S.S.Shannon, Olcott received a letter direct from the Master which set him straight on Their regard and relations with HPB. It warned him to amend his views. This letter has been reprinted in Vol. I, LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM. It begins on p. 50 of that book. G.R.S.Mead was a young scholar and he acted with and for HPB as her Secretary, as did Bertram Keightley, and others, assisting in the framing and editing of THE SECRET DOCTRINE and the magazine LUCIFER. All those who desire to become acquainted with the actual history of the modern Theosophical Movement ought to read the book THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875 -- 1950 it is a documentary history and gives an accurate report on all that developed during those years. [ Price $ 6.00 ] I hope this review will be of assistance. Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 6:18 PM > From: "Brant Jackson" > Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- bad idea >Gentlemen: > I hated to put forth the idea of the TS as a modern mystery school, and >then not take part in the discussions, but then I have been at Olcott for the >convention and summer school, and am just not trying to catch up. > Some of the ideas posted against the idea of the TS as a mystery school >seem to reflect a lack of knowledge of that institution and its benefit to >ancient societies. As I have an interest in such things, older sources such >as Leadbeater, GRS Mead, and also many modern books have given much detail on >the contribution of the mysteries in the ancient word. In Greece, as in many >parts of the ancient world, most intellectually and spiritually-minded >citizens were initiates, at least of the lesser mysteries. The mysteries >were major pillars of those societies. In short, they taught the Theosophy >of their days. What was their worth? I guess that begs the question, if >one doesn't believe that the TS is much more than a debating society. > Another replied that they never knew anyone in the mystery schools. This, >of course, is to be expected. It has been said repeatedly that the oath of >secrecy in ancient times was considered so binding that it was rarely broken. > SNIP From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 19:41:27 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:25:57 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <45d90003.35d8ca16@aol.com> In a message dated 8/17/98 1:45:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: << I have collated a number of interesting references and definitions of "Occultism." If you are interested, let me know and I can send you a "hard copy" as I am not yet set up (after the crashes) to send it through Email. >> Send them on. Is "hard mail" the same as 'snail mail"? Best Wishes Sutratman From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 20:32:51 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:40:25 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Just Say Yes Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980818104025.007cb710@ozemail.com.au> >From Isis Unveiled p589 "The cornerstone of MAGIC is an intimate practical knowledge of magnetism and electricity, their qualities, correlations, and potencies. Especially necessary is a familiarity with their effects in and upon the animal kingdom and man. There are occult properties in many other minerals, equally strange with that of the lodestone, which all practicioners must know, and of which so called exact science is wholly ignorant. Plants also have like mystical properties in a most wonderful degree, and the secrets of the herbs of dreams and enchantments are only lost to European science and, useless to say, are unknown to it, except in a few marked instances, such as opium and hashish. Yet, the physical effects of even these few upon the human system are regarded as evidences of a temporary mental disorder. the women of Thessaly and Epirus, the female heirophants of the rites of Sabazius, did not carry their secrets away with the downfall of their sanctuaries. They are still preserved, and those who are aware of the nature of Soma, know the properties of other plants as well" HPB Here are some of those plants and herbs described above: Phalaris Arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass) - Dimethyltryptamine DMT can be extracted and smoked or combined with an MAOI and taken orally. Psilocybin Cubensis, Stropharia Cubensis, Amarita Muscara ( Mushrooms) Hawaiian Woodrose , Virola cuspidata, Virola theodora, Trichocereus pachanoi, Tetrapteris methystica, Syrian Rue, Sophora secundiflora, sassafras,, Psychotria viridis, Myristica Fragrans (Nutmeg), Mimosa Hostilis, mescaline, and so on Before you go out and try any of these you should read some of the following- The Human encounter with death - Stanisalv Grof & Joan Halifax Hallucinogenic Plants - Richard Evans Island , the Doors of Perception - Aldous Huxley Joyous Cosmology - Alan Watts the Politics of Ecstacy - Timothy Leary On the Evolutionary Significance of Psychadelics - Ralph Metzner ******** THE MAGICAL AND RITUAL USE OF HERBS: A MAGICKAL TEXT ON LEGAL HIGHS - Richard Alan Miller (Organisation for the advancement of Knowledge) ******** the Private Sea- LSD and the search for GOD - William Braden and the grand-daddy of them all RG VEDA Did you know that SOMA is so precious to some tribes that they actually drink the urine of people that consume it to get a second dosage. The urine of some animals that consume the mushrooms is also collected for consumption. i hope I haven't given away to many of the ES's dirty little secrets. gNOSis From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 20:59:10 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:10:35 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <35D8D48B.1E42@netgsi.com> References: <72449083.35d7954c@aol.com> > > >Yeah, I know some folks who are quite happy and they never even > >heard of Theosophy, reincarnation, or karma. > > > > > > Actually most of the folks I know have heard of them, but being either members > of the OTO or Chaos Magicians they don't take them very seriously. > > Chuck I find this true also, and I don't know why, because Crowley himself called HPB an "Adept" in one place and an "Initiate" in other places and had great respect for her. Jerry S. From ???@??? Mon Aug 17 21:14:18 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:21:05 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <35D8D701.2B12@netgsi.com> References: > THROUGH DEATH TO REBIRTH by James Perkins > TPH ISBN 0-8356-0451-9 > > James Perkins was also an artist. His book VISUAL MEDITATIONS > OF THE UNIVERSE contains 34 color plates of his art work, symbolic > visualizations of theosophical themes... Yes, thank you. I especially liked the book because he was able to tie his own personal experiences into Theosophical themes. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 00:23:32 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:13:51 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-17 22:03:36 EDT, you write: >I find this true also, and I don't know why, because Crowley >himself called HPB an "Adept" in one place and an "Initiate" >in other places and had great respect for her. > >Jerry S. > > He also wrote a commentary on the Voice of the Silence that I would love to find. Chuck From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 04:07:37 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:41:39 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: ECP masters Message-ID: <35D88773.1771@dlc.fi> References: <199808160152.UAA09536@proteus.imagiware.com> > > From: "Bjorn Roxendal" > Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:28:08 -0600 > Subject: Re: Re: ECP Masters > > mika perala wrote: > > > Bjorn wrote: > > > > > > Somehow, I find it inappropriate (or it makes it sound a bit banal ) > > when this kind of straight 'teaching'kind of text is expressed this way. > > I think it looks a bit that way in written form, but it is much more meaningful > in the context of the spoken dictation, when the radiation is conveyed more > directly, not only the words. But then, these dictations are very different. > SOme are much more "factual" than others, and the poetic style also varies > widely from one to another. OK, and I admit I have read only few little pamflets so I really don`t know much, I just disliked the outer form. > > > > P.S. Bjorn, are you Swedish? > > I lived in Sweded for the first 35 years of my life, then moved to the US. > > > P.S.S. I hope you can understand my sometimes weird expressions. > > I know quite a few fins, and they are always extremely weird, so I am used to > it! :) Holy Sauna!! I think Ukko, Finnish Supreme God, will have a word with you... 8) From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 04:22:40 1998 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:24:53 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re:Adepts Message-ID: <35D88385.2671@dlc.fi> References: <199808161722.MAA16887@proteus.imagiware.com> > > From: "Jerry Schueler" > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:52:44 -0400 > Subject: Re: Adepts > > >I don`t know where all those uplifting thoughts come from. I haven`t > >seen, or perceived in any other means either, anything or anybody, > >thoughts just come. If you know, good for you. I just feel that I learn > >more about myself and human nature as I live and communicate with my > >fellow beings. These people are actually the 'best possible' teachers > >for me right now. I was not born with clair-voyance abilities of any > >kind and I am not going to practice anything that would get me those > >things. I think I`m better off them, don`t know about the future. > > > > > >Mika > > > > HPB's teaching of nirmanakayas (a poor name, but her idea is good) > tells us that such great Adepts stay on the inner planes in order to > send loving and spiritual thoughts to us. All we have to do is listen > or tune into them. > > Jerry S. And if I stop and listen and start getting loving and spiritual thoughts do I hear an announcement: ´These loving and spiritual thoughts were brought to you by... The Adept Association!!´ 8) I wouldn`t mind having those kind of thoughts but it is not necessary to know where they are coming from, or is it? I feel like this because there are lot of people (including me) who will only get excited about all this talk about 'adepts' and 'masters' and then just flow in daydreaming... mika From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 08:28:59 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:20:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Claims and proof Message-Id: <199808181320.JAA19863@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808172343.SAA12867@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 17, 98 06:43:07 pm Dear Jake, I won't cut and paste from such a long digest, but want to reply to the gist of your remarks about schools and HPB. What you said about a single claim by her constituting *proof* of the nature of her associations with occult schools is based on three assumptions none of which I can accept: 1) That HPB always told the truth about who and what the Masters were, how she knew them, and how they knew one another. If you make that assumption you immediately remove the subject from any scholarly analysis and place it squarely in the domain of "things accepted on faith." Which would be quite in opposition to what HPB, Olcott and the Masters' letters say we should do with such topics. It is "cutting the Gordian knot" as she liked to say. 2) That HPB would not only always told the truth but always clearly understood the issues under discussion; i.e. that she couldn't through misunderstanding end up misrepresenting things. 3) That all HPB's statements on this topic are to be taken at the same literal level of historical truth, and that there is no need to weigh them and evaluate some as more symbolic/mythical than others. These are all debatable assumptions, as I hope you will agree. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 08:45:40 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:35:12 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Warped intellectual principle Message-ID: <201898dd.35d98311@aol.com> >From the "Maha-Chohan's Letter:" "....The intellectual portions of mankind seem to be fast drifting into two classes, the one unconsciously preparing for itself long periods of temporary annihilation or states of non-consciousness, owing to the deliberate surrender of their intellect, its imprisonment in the narrow grooves of bigotry and superstition, a process which cannot fail to lead to the utter deformation of the intellectual principle; the other unrestrainedly indulging its animal propensities with the deliberate intention of *submitting* to annihilation pure and simple in case of failure, to millenniums of degradation after physical dissolution. Those 'intellectual classes,' reacting upon the ignorant masses which they attract and which look up to them as noble and fit examples to follow, degrade and morally ruin those they ought to protect and guide. Between degrading superstition and still more degrading brutal materialism, the white dove of truth has hardly room where to rest her weary unwelcome foot" - from "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom" From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 09:02:11 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 06:52:34 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Claims and proof Message-ID: <35D98722.37BF@azstarnet.com> References: <199808181320.JAA19863@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Paul and Jake: For some reason I didn't receive Jake's remarks about schools and HPB. Could someone send me a copy! Thanks. Daniel K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Dear Jake, > > I won't cut and paste from such a long digest, but want to reply > to the gist of your remarks about schools and HPB. What you said > about a single claim by her constituting *proof* of the nature of > her associations with occult schools is based on three > assumptions none of which I can accept: > 1) That HPB always told the truth about who and what the Masters > were, how she knew them, and how they knew one another. > If you make that assumption you immediately remove the subject > from any scholarly analysis and place it squarely in the domain > of "things accepted on faith." Which would be quite in > opposition to what HPB, Olcott and the Masters' letters say we > should do with such topics. It is "cutting the Gordian knot" as > she liked to say. > 2) That HPB would not only always told the truth but always > clearly understood the issues under discussion; i.e. that she > couldn't through misunderstanding end up misrepresenting things. > 3) That all HPB's statements on this topic are to be taken at the > same literal level of historical truth, and that there is no need > to weigh them and evaluate some as more symbolic/mythical than > others. > > These are all debatable assumptions, as I hope you will agree. > > Cheers, > Paul > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 09:48:12 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:18:49 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Darren and the Drug Path? Message-ID: <219bfdc2.35d98d4a@aol.com> Drugs - Well I have to admit that my first insight or awakening into another world and the possibility of the spiritual came from doing LSD about 26 years ago. I think it is dangerous though, and haven't done a drug for 25 years. But who knows??! I don't for sure. I don't know much about shammanism other than that some seem to conservatively take hallucinogens over their whole lifetime without apparrent serious debilitation. The use of drugs certainly isn't anything Blavatsky recommended for the Theosophical method, which doesn't mean there aren't other "Paths" or that all other paths are somehow evil, although not as wise I think myself. Its certainly not right to try to impose one's own convictions (Theosophy) or methods on someone else beyond a certain point. Everybody's path isn't the same or meant to be the same! - Jake J. From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 11:19:33 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:08:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Mid Atlantic Gathering Message-Id: <199808181608.MAA13071@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> The Maryland lodge of the TSA will host the annual Mid Atlantic gathering to be held at Hector Feliciano's farm north of Baltimore on Sept. 19 from 1 to 6. I was just invited to be one of several speakers, and will talk on "1998 in the Edgar Cayce Readings." Should have copies of the book to sell by then; it's printed this Friday. If anyone on the list is within range of the gathering, I'd recommend it as a blend of good fellowship, good food, and rural scenery that is quite charming. Programs over the years have always been thought provoking. People will be coming from the Delaware, Washington, and Philadelphia lodges at least, and perhaps from farther afield. From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 11:48:15 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:27:37 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Schools, and angel elementals Message-ID: <35D9AB78.E998C1A6@usa.net> References: <59b3c69c.35d8ba56@aol.com> > In a message dated 98-08-17 17:26:51 EDT, you write: > >Swooning advocates of Chanellers: I wonder if you guys - mostly Govert and > >Bjorn it seems - think it is possible for a powerful messmeric force, via a > >dugpa, black adept or ???? make you feel "high as a kite" and seemingly > >spiritually inspired by your own succeptibility and its own mesmeric power? > >Could a powerful hypnotist or mesmerizer induce whatever emotion in you that > >he wanted? > >Is this Possible????? So, you think I am a "swooning advocate of channelers?". I am not the "swooning" type, as you would realize if you knew me better. But if you consider people like HPB to be channelers, yes, in that case I am advocating some of them. After all, HPB received "messages" from "higher beings" and transmitted these to thousands of people. If you by the word "channeling" mean conveying messages from discarnate beings on the astral plane, then I am not an advocate at all. I think most theosophists know too much to be interested in that sort of thing. As far as how much we can be influenced and by whom. This is a complex question. It depends on many factors, such as our degree of self control (self mastery), the power of the person trying to influence us, temporary conditions such as our mood, energy level, etc. I have always had an "instinctive" dislike for hypnosis. To me, free will is sacred and any messing with it wrong. Bjorn From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 12:17:30 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:57:33 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: ECP masters Message-ID: <35D9B27D.7C6D6289@usa.net> References: <199808160152.UAA09536@proteus.imagiware.com> <35D88773.1771@dlc.fi> mika perala wrote: Bjorn: >> it is much more meaningful > > in the context of the spoken dictation, when the radiation is conveyed more > > directly, not only the words. But then, these dictations are very different. > > SOme are much more "factual" than others, and the poetic style also varies > > widely from one to another. Mika: > OK, and I admit I have read only few little pamflets so I really don`t > know much, I just disliked the outer form. That's honest of you to express it that way. Other theosophists react as you do, but instead of identifying their reaction and "owning" it they start projecting all kinds of negative ideas onto the messenger and the message. > Holy Sauna!! I think Ukko, Finnish Supreme God, will have a word with > you... Fine, send him here! We know how to deal with his kind! Bjorn From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 13:02:58 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:48:53 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re:Adepts Message-ID: In a message dated 98-08-18 13:35:04 EDT, you write: >And if I stop and listen and start getting loving and spiritual thoughts >do I hear an announcement: ´These loving and spiritual thoughts were >brought to you by... The Adept Association!!´ 8) > > You mean you don't??? I thought they put their little ad in with every message. Chuck From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 15:43:07 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:29:56 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: A difference between Message-ID: <1c920692.35d9e445@aol.com> Bjorn writes: >if you consider people >like HPB to be channelers, yes, in that case I am advocating some of them. ----------------------------------------- No I don't regard Blavatsky as a channeler. As you probably know, there is a very important difference between a "mediator" and a "medium" (channeler.) The mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control and possession of their faculties - while in most mediumship, the channeler goes into some nature of trance state (often assumed possibly.) Mediatorship is a heighted state of personal awareness, while mediumship is a lowered state of personal awareness, with the medium even not retaining any memory sometimes. The mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or Higher Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or black. The mediator is inspired, while the medium is "taken over." Blavatsky Theosophy warns against mediumship and sees genuine mediatorship as a good and achievement. Its hard often to prove a case of one or another, except perhaps in the quality of the message. - Jake J. From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 16:02:11 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:38:26 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Replies to Dallas Message-ID: <000901bdcae8$4e510d40$187d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dallas: >It makes a difference. Now I understand what you mean by "the abyss." = It appears to >be the first apparently disorganized primal condition of = manifestation, when the >Universe in "germ" emanates from the = ABSOLUTENESS. In SD Vol. I HPB goes into >detail showing what happens = next -- how it gets organized under the karma of its past >with the help = of the Dhyani Buddhas and the Dhyan Chohans, "Builders," etc.... Sounds like you got it. Dallas: >I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT ENTIRELY. THERE IS A GROWTH OF >AWARENESS = AND THE USAGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THAT ASPECT OF THE >MONAD = (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) which is ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPING >CONSCOUSNESS OF = THE EVOLVING ENTITY -- to KAMA-MANAS as I understand >it, butI could be = wrong in this. My question here, is what is the purpose of the whole = >scheme if no accretions occur, if no "enlightenment" is the result of = so much effort to >achieve self-control, and self-purification, so that = working with Nature and her Laws=20 >(Karma) becomes automatic >and voluntary in the evolving entity ? How = does this get=20 >answered ? What about all the SKANDHAS >that are drawn together to = form the=20 >"personality" each lifetime ? What happens to them ? They also = >improve, do they not >? The definition of a monad is an indivisible unit (i.e, not an = "aggragrate" in the Buddhist sense) and so Atma-Buddhi-Manas, which is = by definition a composite, doesn't qualify to be a monad at all. Your = question, if I read it right, if what is the purpose of life? I have already addressed this many times. There are a lot of answers, = but the only one that I can accept is for the pure pleasure of self-expression. >Such a view (including hope that one is not mistaken) seem to dampen >anxiety -- at last for me. First one has to realize and accept the = idea >that death is inevitable -- in one way or another. [ Perhaps those who = have >had an NDE ---near death experience -- are better equipped than those = who >have not, in the sense that they know there is a continuing Egoity or = Entity >that survives the "death" of the present body/personality. ] Everyone intellectually knows that they will die someday. Acceptance of this is easy intellectually. But when you face the absolute certainty = of it, its a different story. I "believe" in life afater death, and I have = had an NDE myself. But when I face the Angel of Death directly and squarely, I still cringe with fear. I have also noticed that the fear of death is = stronger at night and much less during the day. Could this be CWL's solar = globules at work?=20 >Mediative conclusions, and visions emerging from a nights' meditation = may >perhaps also be "transpersonal" -- if genuine they get us a memory = that is >not affected by the "psychic/personal" filter we use all the time when = we >are awake. But it is said that all intuitions and visions ought to be >checked with the active mind for accuracy and their melding with >philosophical and theosophical doctrines. Quite right. >YES, BUT MANAS IS DUAL DEPENDING ON THE ORIENTATION WE GIVE TO IT. >It is the "Lower Manas, immersed in Kama, that is the "Slayer of the = REal." >and that "real" is what filtes down to us from the plane of = Buddhi-Manas, or >the "Higher Mind." >And as I understand it, that is not to be destoyed but rathe studied. Basically what you say here is true, but it is kama-manas that we have = to use to put our higher experiences into words. All buddhi-manas = experiences must be filtered through kama-manas in order for us to assimilate them and share them with others, and in the process the "spirit" of the = experience is destroyed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 16:29:32 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:45:45 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <000001bdcaec$9f322c40$187d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >He also wrote a commentary on the Voice of the Silence that I would love to >find. > >Chuck Yeah, I have it in an old copy of Gems from the Equinox. In it he criticizes much of what she calls Buddhism, and gives his own Buddhist teachings as being authentic. Its pretty clear to me that he is speaking from the Hinayana or Theravadin school and apparently he was not versed in the Mahayana. This is one of the very rare instances where I find him plain wrong, but again I think its because he was unaware of mahayana teachings and HPB just says "Buddhism." I came across an old Crowley essay the other day in which he actually calls her an Adept, which is high respect coming from him. Jerry S. From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 17:43:05 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:40:51 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: No Blavatsky COMPLETE WORKS Message-Id: <199808182240.XAA28135@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Just as an aside, the COMPLETE WORKS are much more accurate to the originals than the COLLECTED WRITINGS Tony Nicholas Weekes wrote: > >Only four volumes of HPB's COMPLETE WORKS were printed -- the last one in >1936. That was the end of the series. It has never been reprinted. > >There is now existing a COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB in 14 numbered volumes, >plus the SD, ISIS, CAVES AND JUNGLES. > From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 17:49:07 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:40:49 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-Id: <199808182240.XAA28126@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> >> >> "Such was the bearing of Theosophical teaching on Neo-Malthusianism, >>as laid before me by H.P. Blavatsky... > >Tony, > >An excellent passage. Not having the book, is Besant quoting an HPB letter >or just relying on memory of a conversation with HPB? Fairly certainly from memory (that is if she didn't have any notes). Earlier in the chapter Annie Besant writes: "I gave up Neo-Malthusianism in April 1891, its renunciation being part of the outcome of two years' instruction from Mdme. H.P. Blavatsky, who showed me however justifiable Neo-Malthusianism might be while man was regarded only as a most perfect outcome of physical evolution, it was wholly incompatible with the view of man as a spiritual being, whose material form and environment were the results of his own mental activity." It is possibly why some find it difficult to cope with the ideas (just the theory) of celibacy, etc., because of seeing it from the earthy side only, rather than from the spiritual too. > >Also, you probably know, near the end of MAHATMA LETTER 86, KH writes of >the "brutal aura" of this pamphlet on birth-control by Besant & Bradlaugh. > >Of course critics on auto-pilot will utter "mere Victorian morality". >But the reasons given by HPB are based in traditional occultism, not any >era's ethical fashions. Yes, agreed. We are only tourists, and Theosophy does point out the way. It is interesting that the theosophical teachings are sometimes taken so personally. Theosophy is offering another way forward (from the continual cycle of rebirths, the suffering, etc.....) To take a look at another "world" free from all the *gut* reaction conditioning. Tony From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 17:56:24 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:56:22 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya Message-ID: <003b01bdcafb$17847280$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 18 Dear "Thread soul" Yes hard copy would be sent by snail mail. I need a mail address please. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 5:51 PM > From: "Marshall Hemingway III" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >In a message dated 8/17/98 1:45:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net >writes: > ><< I have collated a number of interesting references and definitions of > "Occultism." If you are interested, let me know and I can send you a "hard > copy" as I am not yet set up (after the crashes) to send it through Email. >> > >Send them on. Is "hard mail" the same as 'snail mail"? > >Best Wishes >Sutratman > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 18:25:39 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:16:49 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Sex, contraception .... Message-ID: <6c573fa2.35da0b62@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-18 17:33:53 EDT, you write: >I came across an old Crowley >essay the other day in which he actually calls her an Adept, >which is high respect coming from him. > >Jerry S. Actually it's almost amazing, but then he did tell the story of the time he met Col. Olcott and he apparently knew Annie Besant quite well. The only Theosophist he seems to have absolutely no use for was Kathering Tingley. Chuck From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 20:40:05 1998 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:30:25 EDT From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: ---private post---private post-----private post---private post--- Message-ID: <37f9c334.35da2ab3@aol.com> Hi Dallas, You must have forgotten. My new screen name for Theos-Talk is Sutratman. I signed off as "Lmhem111" in Theos-Talk after the chat site fell apart from the Alan Bain controversy. My identity is known only to Ramadoss, Eldon, yourself and Sophia. I prefer to remain anonymous because of all personal invective that goes on in theosophical chat rooms. Something of an irony, I must say !!! My new screen name represents a newer "incarnation" in the chat room, hence, the name "thread soul". My primary Screen Name still remains................ lmhem111@aol. com............so you can always email me there as well. In America Online, a subscriber can have as many as FIVE different screen names or online identities at the same time, a feature which other online services don't offer. I will be leaving for India in several weeks and will be staying there a month. I will be attending ULT in Bangalore on Friday evening, September 25th and possibly Sunday evening. I may be staying at the Holiday Inn at 28 Sankey Road but I may have to stay at another hotel if I get get a reservation there. Best Wishes to you and Valerie Marshall Heminway III (alias Sutratman) P.O. Box 19957 - Hampden Station Baltimore, Maryland 21211-0957 From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 21:24:04 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:48:30 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: We only need to prove one thing Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980819114830.007b7c30@ozemail.com.au> It occurred to me today that if we can conclusively prove the existence of Giants then that would be the foot in the door so to say of getting the rest of the world to accept the theosophical version of evolution. There must be a lot of supressed evidence but there is still so many 'extra large' archeological finds that don't seem to match the building dimensions that humans would use at our height. I would like to collate a database of such locations so if any one would like to post them here I would be grateful. BTW, Has anyone read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? NOS From ???@??? Tue Aug 18 21:32:27 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:43:43 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Motorin' to the Masters Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980819114343.007b5810@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980817140621.007a5380@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> The closest mathematical equation, IMO, to an approximation of reality is the Fractal set equation. Those who have seen the fractals generated by a computer will notice how simialr they are to persian carpets, mandalas, catholic glass staining, and other mystical artforms and not least of all they can be seen by anyone on certain hallucinogens, most commonly d-lysergic acid diethelyamine-25 (LSD). In my experience I can look at an object or meditate on it and the trinity of Object, Observer and process of information dissolves into a unity where I identify as all three, the process begins with the object and myself forming a fractal link which would appear very similar to a MORPH (like when ODO changes shape in Deep Space Nine). The most amazing thing about fractal equations is that they have INFINITE detail. if you construct a fractal on a PC you can zoom ad infinitum revealing more and more beauty and eventually you would come across every form that could exist. i tried this for myself once and zoomed a fractal for over an hour and came across what looked perfectly like a cartoon mickey mouse. NOS At 02:06 PM 8/17/98 -0600, you wrote: >Sutratman wrote: > >>Some feel that mathematics can be the gateway to the higher planes - > >I can understand mathematics revealing a pattern in things and thus >offering the opportunity for one to believe that there is some kind of >"Cosmic consistency and law" further opening up a person to justifiably >wonder if there really is a purpose-filled Consciousness "who" formulated a >rational, logical structure to the universe. For some, this would be all >the proof one would need to conclude that "God" surely does exist. > >However, just because someone is privy to the blueprints of the foundation >of a building doesn't mean they can tell you what is inside the building. >There is also the possibility that the "blueprints" were formulated by a >'lowly' Cosmic engineer who may have merely gotten the stamp of approval >from the "Biggest Wig" - hence, the universe is not "really" the work of God. > >Moreover, in what way would mathematics provide a person access to a >"gateway to the higher planes?" One could build a machine to possibly take >one there, but that would be using the "outer" rather than the "inner" to >approach the "higher planes." From what's been said on this list, even if >we did manage to build something to crash into the house of a "Master" >there's no evidence that he/she would even acknowledge us and he/she may >just simply call the authorities accompanied by demands that your >time-machine license be revoked. > > >Kym > > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 02:52:38 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 02:38:06 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: We only need to prove one thing Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980819023806.009a3da0@mail.eden.com> It is a very good idea. I do not have any specific info. May be some one else may be able to help. mkr At 10:23 PM 8/18/1998 -0400, you wrote: >It occurred to me today that if we can conclusively prove the existence of >Giants then that would be the foot in the door so to say of getting the >rest of the world to accept the theosophical version of evolution. > >There must be a lot of supressed evidence but there is still so many 'extra >large' archeological finds that don't seem to match the building dimensions >that humans would use at our height. I would like to collate a database of >such locations so if any one would like to post them here I would be grateful. > >BTW, Has anyone read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? > >NOS > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 06:38:02 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:50:48 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #381 Message-ID: <35DB48B8.5C80@dlc.fi> References: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> Kym wrote: > Mika wrote: > > >I don`t know where all those uplifting thoughts come from. I haven`t > >seen, or perceived in any other means either, anything or anybody, > >thoughts just come. If you know, good for you. > > I don't know either from where uplifting thoughts come from nor, for that > matter, where not-so-uplifting thoughts come from. It would seem if I were > to attribute uplifting thoughts to "messages from loving Discarnate Beings" > I would have to also, to be consistent, contribute negative thoughts as > being from "unloving Discarnate Beings." Well, that would make sense with that logic. But,what kind of thoughts would be our own then? > >I just feel that I learn > >more about myself and human nature as I live and communicate with my > >fellow beings. These people are actually the 'best possible' teachers > >for me right now. > > I have found that to apply to me also. I prefer viewing spirituality in > "action." I`m beginning to see the value of that view myseld also. Up to now I`ve talked much... I'm embarrassed to quote a movie - but, in the film "Forrest > Gump" his mother said that "Stupid is as stupid does." Well, to me, > "spirituality is as spirituality does." Words are abundant and can easily > be masked to hide a hardened heart, however, most humans have a more > difficult time hiding such a hardened heart when it comes to their actions; > a person's actions will eventually reveal what it is they really believe > and think. Those humans who believe in Compassion and then actually live > and practice it, are to me, the greatest Teachers and Inspirers. My girlfriend and I were yesterday at Helsinki where Mata Amritanandamayi or 'Mother Amma' gave a darshan. Her 'darshan' was hugging people and she was very real with it. She is very compassionate IMHO and does much social work in India and I can think her as a 'highly spiritual person'. Whether she`s an avatara like people around her said, I have no idea, or any means to authenticate, but it`s not relevant IMHO. Still it´s not my thing with all those rituals and seremonies and mantras and so on. > >I was not born with clair-voyance abilities of any > >kind and I am not going to practice anything that would get me those > >things. I think I`m better off them, don`t know about the future. > > With all science has discovered about the human mind and its frailties (and > its powers), any visions or "voices" I perceived would immediately be > subject to my personal doubt and scrutiny. Did the "messages" come from a > spiritual entity, my wishful thinking, or simply bad mutton? 'Mutton'?? You mean you`ve ate something spoiled? I could never > be sure, so I find the absence of them more beneficial than not - although, > to be honest, I am sometimes envious of those who claim a "direct link" to > other spiritual planes. But, then again, I invariably begin to wonder if > there are documented mental breakdowns in their past. . .. I have a tendency to be envious too, and I start very easily to create all sorts of silly daydreams about 'what if I would be a supernaturalparanormalnearlyadept if I`d follow some instructions how to become psychic' or something else like that... mika From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 08:22:55 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:12:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Mediums vs. Mediators Message-Id: <199808191312.JAA04142@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808182249.RAA07149@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 18, 98 05:49:08 pm Dear Jake, If I seem to take issue with your statements more than anyone else's, please don't take it as a personal thing. Actually I have come to like and respect you from seeing you on this list, and wish others sharing your belief system were as polite about exprerssing their views. But in light of my knowledge of Cayce, I can't see your mediator/medium distinction as having much validity. You say that "the mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control and possession of their faculties" and make HPB an example of this. But we of course cannot know that this was true of her, as an awful lot of her behavior seems to me *not* fully self-conscious or in full control and possession of her faculties. I mean by this the personality traits that brought her into near-constant conflict with people around her. Whether this was a by-product of spending so much time in the world of "phenomena" is debatable. But Cayce clearly did go into a trance state, not even retaining memory. Yet as a person, he displayed a lot more equilibrium, lightheartedness, sweetness even, than she seems to have done, and there is no one on record AFAIK complaining about his treatment of people around him. I know that these are not the domains you had in mind when making the distinction, but they are relevant to me in comparing the two types. You say that the "mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or Higher Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or `black.' The mediator is inspired, while the medium is `taken over.'" I can think of no evidence that Cayce was used by subhuman or `black' entities, as what he "channeled" was in the overwhelming majority of cases the *person who sought the reading*. Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the means whereby they are contacted. Yes, ideally it is better not to lose self-consciousness in order to make contact with other realms and entities. Cayce himself says so, and that his need to go into deep trance reflected previous lives in which he had squandered his gifts. But you cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is channeling something higher and better. Namaste, Paul From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 09:53:50 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:43:35 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Mediums vs. Mediators Message-ID: <35DAE497.11D2@azstarnet.com> References: <199808191312.JAA04142@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Paul & Jake have brought up an interesting subject. One could write a huge book on what Blavatsky & the Mahatmas said about Mediumship, Seership, Mediatorship, Psychism and related topics. I believe even most Blavatksy students don't realize the profundity of what is found on these subjects in the HPB/Mahatma writings. In order to appreciate much of what is written by HPB on these subjects, one needs a background in Spiritualism, psychical research/parapsychology, mysticism, magic, psychology, tranpersonal psychology, etc. A good knowledge of early Theosophical history wouldn't hurt either! I think Paul is very correct when he makes the observation: > But you > cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep > trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who > consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is > channeling something higher and better. Paul also comments: > Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or > negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the > means whereby they are contacted. I'm not so sure that "THE MEANS whereby they are contacted" is irrelevant. If the "seer" is hypnotised, this method by which "contact" is made may influence and color the perceptions, and the Content of what is received. The hypnotiser may (unknown to himself/herself) be telepathically infecting what is received by the "psychic" or "sensitive". This is just one example from many that could be presented. This whole area is a very complex and complicated subject. Some of Blavatsky's material has been compiled in DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHIC WORLD and in the books of Geoffrey Farthing. But reams of material could be written. For example, on the "seership/mediumship" of Laura Holloway, Stainton Moses, Anna Kingsford, Suby Ram (Rai Salig Ram), and others. Geoffrey Barborka has written a volume dealing in part with HPB as a "tulku" but he only scratches the surface of that particular subject. Concerning Paul's references to HPB's "personality" and "negative" (?) behavior, one must also take into consideration what is said about this very subject in letters from her Teachers. Also Colonel Olcott and other persons who knew her well have made a number of valuable observations extremely relevant to Paul's references. Again even this particular subject cannot be easily understood or summarized in a few pages of text. Daniel K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Dear Jake, > > If I seem to take issue with your statements more than anyone > else's, please don't take it as a personal thing. Actually I > have come to like and respect you from seeing you on this list, > and wish others sharing your belief system were as polite about > exprerssing their views. > > But in light of my knowledge of Cayce, I can't see your > mediator/medium distinction as having much validity. You say > that "the mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control > and possession of their faculties" and make HPB an example of > this. But we of course cannot know that this was true of her, as > an awful lot of her behavior seems to me *not* fully self-conscious > or in full control and possession of her faculties. I mean by > this the personality traits that brought her into near-constant > conflict with people around her. Whether this was a by-product > of spending so much time in the world of "phenomena" is > debatable. But Cayce clearly did go into a trance state, not > even retaining memory. Yet as a person, he displayed a lot more > equilibrium, lightheartedness, sweetness even, than she seems to > have done, and there is no one on record AFAIK complaining about > his treatment of people around him. I know that these are not > the domains you had in mind when making the distinction, but they > are relevant to me in comparing the two types. You say that the > "mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or > Higher Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or > `black.' The mediator is inspired, while the medium is `taken > over.'" I can think of no evidence that Cayce was used by > subhuman or `black' entities, as what he "channeled" was in the > overwhelming majority of cases the *person who sought the > reading*. Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or > negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the > means whereby they are contacted. > > Yes, ideally it is better not to lose self-consciousness in order > to make contact with other realms and entities. Cayce himself > says so, and that his need to go into deep trance reflected > previous lives in which he had squandered his gifts. But you > cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep > trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who > consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is > channeling something higher and better. > > Namaste, > Paul From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 10:47:16 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:42:27 EDT From: "Brant Jackson" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- not a bad idea Message-ID: Dallas: You set forth at very detailed list of concepts taught in modern Theosophy which it offers to the public in plain language for the first time. I agree that we have gotten much more detail from the S.D. and other Theosophical works than from the "fragments of an ancient faith", but that is the nature of secret organizations. I personally like Barborka's The Divine Plan, a study guide to the S.D., for the way its organizes and presents these doctrines, starting with the fundamental propositions, in a gradual and sequential pattern. Given the fact that the church no longer has the power to burn us at the stake for heresy, public disclosure is now both possible and necessary. But I happen to think that Theosophy must be more than study and memorization of facts. It must be more than a mere body of esoteric knowledge. There is too much in its literature that stresses that personal self-transformation through a process of union, [the Path?] is necessary to really understand [through experience?] the occult truths contained in the S.D. IMHO, the mystery schools probably taught the process necessary to understand the knowledge, always a subjective process depending on the development of the seeker, as well as the knowledge itself. Are we doing this today? Brant Jackson [BJack5259@aol.com] From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 11:49:39 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:33:46 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #381 Message-ID: <35DAFE6A.5A0D6868@usa.net> References: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> <35DB48B8.5C80@dlc.fi> mika perala wrote: Kym? > I'm embarrassed to quote a movie - but, in the film "Forrest > > Gump" his mother said that "Stupid is as stupid does." Well, to me, > > "spirituality is as spirituality does." You are only restating what HPB said in Key: "Theosophist is as Theosophy does". She didn't say that "Theosophist is as theosophy speaks" (or writes), which I find interesting and significant. > Those humans who believe in Compassion and then actually live > > and practice it, are to me, the greatest Teachers and Inspirers. Yes, those are the real Theosophists. The Theosophical teachings are only a crutch to help us get there. Unfortunately, the T teachings have been made an end in themselves by many theosophists. "Theosophy" means primarily "theosophical teachings" to many members, rather than, as HPB suggested, "theosophical actions". Bjorn From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 12:19:58 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:04:13 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: We only need to prove one thing Message-ID: <002201bdcb93$659163a0$1c7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >BTW, Has anyone read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? > >NOS As a fantasy fan, I read the entire series a few years ago. Very psychological in parts, and interesting enough to keep me reading. Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 12:29:36 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:17:32 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re:Adepts Message-ID: <004601bdcb95$41180220$1c7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >I wouldn`t mind having those kind of thoughts but it is not necessary to >know where they are coming from, or is it? I feel like this because >there are lot of people (including me) who will only get excited about >all this talk about 'adepts' and 'masters' and then just flow in >daydreaming... > >mika > > No, you don't have to know where its coming from. Could be God, angels, nirmanakayas, living adepts, your own Higher Self, etc. Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 12:41:24 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:13:29 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: Mediums vs. Mediators Message-ID: <003d01bdcb94$b04a4e60$1c7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >Concerning Paul's references to HPB's "personality" and "negative" (?) >behavior, one must also take into consideration what is said about this >very subject in letters from her Teachers. Also Colonel Olcott and >other persons who knew her well have made a number of valuable >observations extremely relevant to Paul's references. Again even this >particular subject cannot be easily understood or summarized in a few >pages of text. > >Daniel > Dan, I have to agree. At least some of her negativity was deliberate as a way of testing others. But some of it seems inherent in initiates/adepts who go out into the world as teachers. Abrassivness is, to some extent, necessary to get the job done. I, for example, couldn't do what she did very well at all. I also agree with Paul that whether you consciously channel or do it unconsciously doesn't make any difference--you still have to look at what is being channeled. In addition to Cayce, look at all Robert's Seth books published--IMHO these are quite good even though channeled unconsciously. Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 12:44:30 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:25:35 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Giants Message-Id: <199808191735.MAA04806@proteus.imagiware.com> Someone sent me this piece on an ancient Giant: MOUND BUILDERS "A rare archeological discovery has been made near Reinersville, in Morgan County, Ohio. A small knoll which has always been supposed to be the result of an uprooted tree was opened recently and discovered to be the work of mound builders. Just below the level of the surrounding surface a layer of boulders and pebbles was found, and directly underneath this was found the skeleton of a giant, which measured 8' 7" in height. Surrounding the skeleton were bone and stone implements, stone hatchets and other characteriestics of the mound builders. The discovery is considered by the local scientists as one of the most important ever made in Ohio. The skeleton is now in the possession of a Reinersville collector." - from "Vail's Annular World," Vol. III, #34, Second month, 1898, p. 30. From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 12:46:06 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:25:33 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Mediator & Mediums Message-ID: <43f4f37b.35db0a8f@aol.com> Paul writes: >....you cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep >trance is channeling something negative, ====================== Yes, right. Cayce didn't seem to be channeling anything necessarily nasty, much of the material is pretty "white" from what I remember, although how accurate who can say. Blavatsky or Purucker says that the Purity or level of purity of the medium determines what they get, and Cayce seemed a pretty pure-minded person, and pretty unique among mediums. Unfortunately, mediumship is also supposedly to normally lead to a degradation of character, as the medium is an open door for whatever forces might influence the person, and become more so as more actively mediumistic, some more and some less it would seem. As a side, people with big psychological problems are mediums too, I think, like obsessive criminals and addicts. ============================================== >I can't see your >mediator/medium distinction as having much validity. You say >that "the mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control >and possession of their faculties" and make HPB an example of >this. But we of course cannot know that this was true of her, as >an awful lot of her behavior seems to me *not* fully self-conscious >or in full control and possession of her faculties. I mean by >this the personality traits that brought her into near-constant >conflict with people around her. =================================== I was referring to being "fully self-conscious and in full control and possession of their faculties" WHILE being in the state of "mediating" - like when Blavatsky was writing or being shown and copying from the astral light. Blavatsky supposedly had a "missing principle" or sub-principle (to insure she wouldn't reveal certain things esoterically she knew under the pressures of being in the worldly-world), and this is held to be the occult explanation for her erratic temperament. I don't see why an irrascible temperament necessarily indicates a lower state of consciousness. I don't particularly like gooey- positive people myself. I doubt this issue could be treated one way or another from a scholarly perspective. Personally I like her personality and when she did such things as when asked at table to pass the butter to the Indian with the child-bride say: "Here! And I hope you grease your soul to hell with it!" With her chain- smoking, she wouldn't be even able to sit in at a Theosophical meeting today! You're a good Theosophical Historian for a Christian, but there is a lot of material on "Mediator" vs. "Medium" in Blavatsky and Purucker's philosophic writings, and it is a pretty clear philosophic concept. I don't know what Cayce was "channeling." Anyone else have any idea? - Jake J. From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 13:59:42 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:56:00 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: HPB's eclecticism Message-ID: <35DB1F62.496@azstarnet.com> References: <199808171507.LAA14045@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Paul, Thanks again for your post (below). I was hoping that I would have more time in order to adequately reply to your various points. At this time I cannot go over everything I would like to, so I will give comments but on two of your statements. I still have not responded to Jerry Schueler's comments on the Adept Brotherhood that he posted last week. I hope to also do that sometime later this week. Paul, at two places in your post you refer to "scholars" and "scholarship": #1 reference: > *Not* OK, there's no credible evidence for this and the > overwhelming judgment of scholarship would be that such a thing > is not just unproven but extremely implausible. #2 reference: > So talk > of a "universal freemasonry of science and philosophy" can have a > certain symbolic inner truth even though it refers to historical > circumstances that never existed-- or at least cannot be shown to > have existed by evidence that would persuade scholars. Let us look at the possible background assumptions that you hold in regard to your references to scholars and scholarship: What "scholars" in particular are you referring to? Are you referring to such "scholars" like Paul Edwards or Gordon Melton or ? I have found that far too many of these scholars have biases, etc. of their own by which they prejudge occult/theosophical ideas and claims. And most of these so-called scholars/scientists also have a profound ignorance of these paranormal/occult/theosophical subjects. Please read what Dean Radin says about the "skepticism" of such scholars/scientists in his 1997 book THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE. Also read two books put out by your own publisher SUNY: (1) Parapsychology, Philosophy and Spirituality by David Ray Griffin. This is an excellent book and shows some of the biases of the socalled scholarly community. (2) Paranormal Experience and Survival of Death by Carl B. Becker Especially chapters 4 and 5. Also cosnult Stephen Braude's book THE LIMITS OF INFLUENCE, especially his first chapter on "The importance of non-experimental evidence." And please do not forget the harsh assessment of the scientific/scholarly community by Ray Hyman (who BTW is skeptical of the paranormal). Dr. Hyman ADMITS the following: ". . . members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims WITHOUT FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. "VERY FEW of the scientific critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic phenomena. "Even FEWER, IF ANY, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological literature. . . . "Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING." The books (mentioned above) document in detail Hyman's assessment. And I believe Hyman's remarks can be extended from the strictly parapsychogical to the broader areas of the occult/theosophical/paranormal that we are discussing. So when you write about HPB's claim of an organized Adept Brotherhood as follows: > *Not* OK, there's no credible evidence for this and the > overwhelming judgment of scholarship would be that such a thing > is not just unproven but extremely implausible, are you making an "appeal" to the "OVERWHELMING judgment of scholarship"? By referring to this "overwhelming judgment of scholarship", what are you hoping your readers here on Theos-Talk will accept? And if you are making such an appeal, why? And just what constitutes this "scholarship"? And how reliable is this scholarship? AND WHY SHOULD WE BE SO IMPRESSED WITH THIS SCHOLARSHIP AND ITS JUDGMENT? And what kind of evidence are you referring to in the above statement? And what evidence would be credible? And credible to whom? Credible to these scholars/scientists who prejudge all of this and who know little if anything about the subject? Paul, I'm not asking you these questions with the expectation that you will answer all of them. But I am hoping that you and others reading this will do some hard thinking on the various points raised in my questions. According to the skeptical scientific/scholarly community (as described in the various books mentioned above), all the evidence for ESP, telepathy, life after death, reincarnation, etc. etc. is not considered credible and is rejected. This community probably rejects all the major tenets of Theosophy. Not to mention Cayce and his teachings. And how would this same "scholarship" and these same "scholars" deal with some of your own statements/beliefs? For example, you wrote in TMR: "The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in New York." What would be the assessment by "scholars" of this statement of yours? Especially when they learned that the only evidence you have about these 2 adepts was provided by Blavatky and Olcott. What would the "overwhelming judgment of scholarship" be? Or consider one of your possibilities regarding Agardi Metrovitch: "A third alternative is that Metrovitch was indeed dead but was working with HPB from the 'other side'." (TMR, p. 37) I don't know how serious you were in mentioning this "possibility" nor do I know whether you seriously believe in some kind of life after bodily death. But I do know that the scientific/scholarly community (as described by Hyman, Radin, Braude, Griffen, etc.) would probably just GRIN AND SMIRK when reading such a statement from your pen. There are other examples in your 3 books which I could cite and then ask similar questions. WHAT AM I GETTING OUT? WHAT'S MY POINT? I'm not trying to be difficult with you; just asking you (and others) to examine your OWN statements and background assumptions. Just as it is good for Blavatsky/Theosophical students to question their own assumptions, etc., it is good for you, Jerry Schueler and the rest of us to do the same. So when you refer to "evidence that would persuade scholars" and to "the overwhelming judgment of scholarship" SHOULD ANY OF US THEOSOPHISTS READING YOUR STATEMENTS BE IMPRESSED BY YOUR APPEAL TO THESE SCHOLARS AND THEIR SCHOLARSHIP??? I am not against "scholarship". Of course, it depends on what your definition of the term is. But I am not impressed by this "scholarship" in general which prejudges many things based on almost total ignorance of the subject matter. Of course, there may be individual scholars who are exceptions to what Hyman describes in his statement. Paul, if you want to cite their particular judgments, etc., please do. Then we can grapple with those judgments and go through the points made one by one. I have written this in a rush. I hope a few readers will understand my points. I will deal later with the rest of Paul's comments. Daniel Caldwell K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Daniel, your post allows plenty of material to discuss in the > effort to clarify what I mean by "full doctrine on a silver > platter"-- which is the naive interpretation of how HPB received > her ideas from her adept teachers. Whether or not you would > adhere to such an interpretation is a litmus test of Theosophical > fundamentalism. Perhaps my explanation of the issue of eclectism > vs. pure transmission of a unitary body of doctrine will help you > define your own position. Retracing our steps: I quoted a passage > in which HPB states that the doctrines of the SD are found > scattered in many other texts. You blamed me for not appending > the next part: "The sole advantage which the writer has over her > predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal > speculations and theories. For this work is a partial statement > if what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, > supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own > study and observation." You say this conveys the "whole message > conveyed in the entire paragraph" but what you take that message > to be does not coincide with what I see there. > > HPB could be entirely eclectic, that is building up a systematic > body of doctrines out of multiple traditional sources, without > its contradicting the above passage in the slightest. All she is > saying above is that almost every doctrine taught in the book was > not original with her, but came from "more advanced students" who > taught her. There is no claim in this passage that these more advanced > students were all part of one outward organization, all knew one another, > all taught and learned the same identical body of doctrines. > Elsewhere you may find passages that imply such a claim, but I > can counter with at least an equal number that present HPB's > relationships with her living teachers in a different light-- as > connections with different traditions exemplified by people in > different parts of the world who did not know one another. So > let's not resort to "proof texts" as that leads nowhere. Suffice > it to observe that there are two levels of claims in the > literature, one of which I find confirmable in history, the other > of which looks highly suspicious to anyone with knowledge of > religious history and occult legends. Level #1: "I learned > virtually everything from experts in occult doctrines, and have > done little innovating or modification." OK, not hard to accept > in light of how many experts she can be seen to have known. > Level #2: "and all these elements in my writings are in fact part > of a single occult tradition which is preserved secretly in > various places around the globe but which is a unitary body of > knowledge that has existed as such for very long periods of > time." Attached to this are claims about Senzar, cave libraries, > international telepathic communication networks, etc. > *Not* OK, there's no credible evidence for this and the > overwhelming judgment of scholarship would be that such a thing > is not just unproven but extremely implausible. > > When you refer to "isolated" adepts she may have known, that > misrepresents my thought, since the adept mentors I write about > are linked in various kinds of "lodges"-- Masonic, Hindu, Sikh-- > and HPB is getting *traditions* through them, not just the ideas > of individuals. But she is getting *separate traditions*, with > whatever commentary on their interconnections her sources might > have provided, and integrating them herself. > > You may be right that "full doctrine on a silver platter" is a > caricature of what HPB and the adepts claimed. But it is a naive > view that is widely assumed in the Theosophical movement and > clearly underlies the things Dallas was saying in his discussion > with Kym. > > Some of your quotes are irrelevant to the issue at hand. That > HPB knew "Eastern adepts" and studied "their science" does not > necessarily mean that all their knowledge was a single science. > If she said she had known "philosophers" and studied "their > discipline" would that mean there was only one philosophy to be > studied rather than an eclectic assortment? When you talk about > the fundamental truths of all that we are permitted to know on > earth (quoting from Isis) and "one unbroken chain around the > globe" which was a "universal freemasonry of science and > philosophy" I think it important to note that at one level a > historical claim is being made here. That should be subject to > all the same criteria of evidence that any such claim would be, > and comes up mighty short as a literal thing. But at a mythical > level, whatever we humans deeply know because it is inherent in > our being does give a certain consistency and coherence to the > widest range of spiritual teachings in diverse places. So talk > of a "universal freemasonry of science and philosophy" can have a > certain symbolic inner truth even though it refers to historical > circumstances that never existed-- or at least cannot be shown to > have existed by evidence that would persuade scholars. > > Cheers, > PJ From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 15:02:03 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:56:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Scholarship Message-Id: <199808191956.PAA02238@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808191859.NAA11237@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 19, 98 01:59:54 pm Dan, I wasn't thinking at all of the *paranormal* aspects of the issue when saying that HPB's claims about a single occult tradition would be overwhelmingly rejected by scholars. Yes, you are right that the scholarly world has accomplished very little in this domain that would command respect from Theosophists or anyone else. What I was referring to was the scholarship in history of religions that has unfolded in the last century, and the understanding of the development of various traditions. While HPB's claims in the SD about Senzar, and all esotericism being historically rooted in a single body of knowledge, etc., have a certain appeal to them, that appeal is to the mythopoetic imagination. What I would predict, for example, is that if the Mahatma Letters were presented to an assortment of religious historians and only a single question was asked-- "Is this system of teaching something that could have been preserved in India or Tibet for centuries, or is it the product of a synthesizing Westerner of the 19th century?"-- the answer of a panel of say 100 experts would be 100-0 in favor of the latter. That is leaving aside all questions of the paranormal faculties of HPB, the status of Masters, etc., the handwriting of the letters, and is simply an issue of the history of ideas. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 16:14:37 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:19:38 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Scholarship Message-ID: <35DB416A.2234@azstarnet.com> References: <199808191956.PAA02238@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Paul, Again thanks for your reply. But my major point doesn't just apply to the *paranormal*. I was referring to the various attitudes/behaviors of the "scholars/scientists" to prejudge things, etc. etc. See what Hyman writes. This can be applied to subjects other than the paranormal. You write: > What I was referring to was the scholarship in history of > religions that has unfolded in the last century, and the > understanding of the development of various tradition. But much of this "scholarship" has a materialistic view of religion. There is a tendency to reduce things to "physical" explanations, etc. Religion is full of the paranormal. And what is the attitude of the typical "religious historian" on this aspect/dimension of religion? Again, I do not know how the religious historians would vote about THE MAHATMA LETTERS. I assume that probably the majority of them would vote as you suggest. But that doesn't surprise me. Nor does that convince me that they are right. Similarly I am not convinced or impressed by the arguments of scholars/scientists/PhDs who continue to deny the reality of paranormal phenomena. The majority of psychologists still don't believe in the paranormal. Does that majority vote influence/impress you to also disbelieve? So with the religious historians. I would certainly want to know their reasons and arguments. But I would have to go over the evidence and understand their reasoning myself. I would not be convinced by the fact that the majority had voted that way. Even if it was 100-0. I watched almost every moment of the first O.J. Simpson trial. Even though the jury found him "Not Guilty" I was reasonably convinced based on my assessment of the evidence that Simpson was the murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I had no *reasonable* doubt to the contrary. If I had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury. So based on what you say about your proposed experiment with 100 religious historians, are you telling us that YOU are convinced that H.P. Blavatsky wrote THE MAHATMA LETTERS? In other words, Blavatsky created/produced the teachings to be found in those letters? But I thought you believed/suggested that Thakur Singh was also involved (somehow) in the "writing" of the Mahatma Letters?? And even Olcott? Daniel K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Dan, > > I wasn't thinking at all of the *paranormal* aspects of the issue > when saying that HPB's claims about a single occult tradition > would be overwhelmingly rejected by scholars. Yes, you are right > that the scholarly world has accomplished very little in this > domain that would command respect from Theosophists or anyone > else. > > What I was referring to was the scholarship in history of > religions that has unfolded in the last century, and the > understanding of the development of various traditions. While > HPB's claims in the SD about Senzar, and all esotericism being > historically rooted in a single body of knowledge, etc., have a > certain appeal to them, that appeal is to the mythopoetic > imagination. > > What I would predict, for example, is that if the Mahatma Letters > were presented to an assortment of religious historians and only > a single question was asked-- "Is this system of teaching something that > could have been preserved in India or Tibet for centuries, > or is it the product of a synthesizing Westerner of the 19th > century?"-- the answer of a panel of say 100 > experts would be 100-0 in favor of the latter. That is leaving > aside all questions of the paranormal faculties of HPB, the > status of Masters, etc., the handwriting of the letters, and is > simply an issue of the history of ideas. > > Cheers, > Paul From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 17:29:26 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:08:48 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Spirituality in action Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980820100848.007a9e00@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> Responding to Kym >I prefer viewing spirituality in "action." .... Well, to me, >"spirituality is as spirituality does." Words are abundant and can easily >be masked to hide a hardened heart, however, most humans have a more >difficult time hiding such a hardened heart when it comes to their actions; >a person's actions will eventually reveal what it is they really believe >and think. Those humans who believe in Compassion and then actually live >and practice it, are to me, the greatest Teachers and Inspirers. A heart-felt yes, to all that, Kym. It is in doing something that the spiritual impulse is complete in its outworking - a sign that our consciousness system or being-space, so to speak, is integrated enough and has sufficiently clear pathways between the different levels for the impulse to reach the most concrete levels of reality. Words, of course, are not necessarily excluded from being the appropriate action at times. >With all science has discovered about the human mind and its frailties (and >its powers), any visions or "voices" I perceived would immediately be >subject to my personal doubt and scrutiny. And long may we all keep scrutiny and non-destructive doubt alive, in their right places and proportions. They are essential, IMO, to preserving our intellectual integrity when other pathways of knowing are beginning to stir within. The balance between clarity of concept and a fluid openness, appreciation of the old and willingness to encounter the new, certainty and conscious acknowledgement of ignorance, is a bit tricky but is a totally achievable goal. Some are nearer to it than others, of course ... :-) Best wishes Murray From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 17:39:36 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:07:07 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Re: Approaching the Adepts Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980820100707.007aa570@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808121400.JAA32105@proteus.imagiware.com> Dallas This reply is so long in the coming that most could be forgiven for having forgotten what the relevant thread of discussion was all about. As usual, time pressures and computer problems ... Anyway: Thanks for your thoughtful reply on approaching the Adepts. There was much that I agreed with or found expressed in a fresh and significant way. I particularly liked the way you saw this as a work of carving a bridge that leads to the ineffable which is Within. A great metaphor for a great reality. As to how, as you ask - perhaps it could be put that the Bridge is built from both sides at once in subtle tendrils that gradually turn into strong beams. The higher reaching to the lower, the lower reaching to the higher, until a grand synthesis or integration has appeared. And, curiously, while it is essential to seek knowledge and be clear in mind, there is a need for a deep trust (not talking about blind belief in a dogma, sort of thing) in one way or another, at the tendril-building stage, while the centre of gravity of consciousness is shifting to a very different basis from what it has been accustomed to. Whether this is in a teacher, or a heart-sensed spiritual reality, we all envision it in our own ways. I could go on, but will leave the rest to others' imaginations. Oh, I have The Key to Theosophy - it's a few decades now since I first met it. For me, on my particular path of growth and service, it is important to try to put timeless verities in fresh language, because of the human propensity to crystallize forms around them, and because there is always another slant that we may not have already seen. While greatly respecting and appreciating the pioneering forms of those who have gone before. Best wishes Murray >Aug 12th 1998 > >Dear Murray: > >I have never found a quick answer to your question as to how to draw close >to the Masters. But wiser ones than I have said that it should be our aim >to do that. > >1. The proximity of "Masters" is not a physical but a psychological >distance, as you seem to intuit (and as I would estimate it). > >It you take into account the 7-fold divisions of Man and Kosmos you will see >that ATMA (Spirit) and BUDDHI (Wisdom) are common -- How does the embodied >consciousness (you and me as we now are) or Kama-Manas approach to >Atma-Buddhi ? How does the personal self, involved in the "1000 chords of >desire" separate itself from those, and become One-centered on learning the >TRUTH of all things ? > >The "bridge" is the HIGHER MANAS. HPB defines this in the KEY rather well >and thoroughly. I suppose you have that book for reference ? > >For Kama-Manas ( or Lower manas) to contact the Master ( Atma-Buddhi) it has >to fist grasp the idea that that Master is interior. It has been called the >HIGHER SELF. Next, as I see it, it has to embody as practice in daily life, >the ethics and rules of the life of a Manasic being. Briefly described, >this is harmlessness, compassion and brotherhood. > >In other words it carves for itself out of its own material the bridge that >lads it to the ineffable which is WITHIN. > >The Great Adepts whom we call Mahatmas, or Masters of Wisdom are Those who >have successfully done this work. They are named variously as Adepts, >Brothers, Mahatmas, Masters, Bodhisattvas, Arhats, Buddhas, Dhyan Chohans, >etc... names that indicate their powers and functions -- and with which we >are not directly concerned, as our present field of work is our own >personality, which we need to study, understand and learn how to control. > >We are the beginners. Part of our progress on this great and uniform path >is learning what we are, who we are and what we can do with the potential >and actual powers we already possess. In other words a large portion of the >work is self-initiation. > >Consider the vast mass of HPB's writings. How many of us have set to work >to actually, in this incarnation, acquire a superficial working knowledge of >what she wrote on behalf of the Adepts. Why did she do it ? What had the >Adepts to profit from that arduous work ? What is our benefit? and, what >is our responsibility ? How do we change "superficial" interest into >convinced practice ? > >These and many more ideas I derive from my studies. I can only offer some >of these and they should only be taken as the opinions of one person and >subject to faults and therefore carefully scrutinized. > >Hope this is of some help, > >Dallas From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 18:14:26 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:46:34 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #381 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980819174634.00883a30@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <35DAFE6A.5A0D6868@usa.net> References: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> <35DB48B8.5C80@dlc.fi> At 10:33 AM 8/19/1998 -0600, you wrote: >Unfortunately, the T teachings have been made an >end in themselves by many theosophists. > >Bjorn I agree with you. It took over 3 decades of listening and reading T teachings. Exposure to Krishnamurti's writings and videos helped me to break out of the cocoon of T. mkr From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 18:25:28 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:43:01 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Spirituality in action Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980819174301.00883100@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980820100848.007a9e00@iprolink.co.nz> References: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> At 10:08 AM 8/20/1998 +1200, you wrote: > >It is in doing something that the spiritual impulse is complete in its >outworking - a sign that our consciousness system or being-space, so to >speak, is integrated enough and has sufficiently clear pathways between >the different levels for the impulse to reach the most concrete levels of >reality. >Murray I can confirm the above from personal experience and when I responded immediately with action, the action was 100% on target and the results exceeded all expectations and confirmed my belief that a single person can achieve results that even a group of scholars and/or experienced business men/women cannot achieve. The trick is act with all expediency and with 1000% commitment. mkr From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 18:29:26 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:55:07 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #381 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980819175507.008838c0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <35DB48B8.5C80@dlc.fi> References: <199808171240.HAA19849@proteus.imagiware.com> At 02:50 PM 8/19/1998 -0700, you wrote: >My girlfriend and I were yesterday at Helsinki where Mata >Amritanandamayi or 'Mother Amma' gave a darshan. Her 'darshan' was >hugging people and she was very real with it. She is very compassionate >IMHO and does much social work in India and I can think her as a 'highly >spiritual person'. Whether she`s an avatara like people around her said, >I have no idea, or any means to authenticate, but it`s not relevant >IMHO. > >>mika A few days ago, a long time friend of mine who had known "Mother Amma" over 10 years. He indicated that when she delivers her lectures you could see a dramatic change in her personality. I do not know what the mechanism is -- channelling or mediumship. I also do not know if the entity which is taking control is highly evolved or not. BTW, what do you think is the reason for the tremendous interest in her? Any ideas? mkr From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 18:59:26 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:58:54 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Sutratman Address?? Message-Id: <199808192358.AA17131@lafn.org> Dear S: AOL says you have "permanent fatal errors" at the sutratman address. I tried two or three times, but it keeps bouncing back. Same with the other "L" address. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 19:29:26 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:18:19 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Mediator & Mediums Message-Id: <199808200018.BAA16391@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Jake J.writes: >Blavatsky supposedly had a "missing principle" or sub-principle (to insure she >wouldn't reveal certain things esoterically she knew under the pressures of >being in the worldly-world), and this is held to be the occult explanation for >her erratic temperament. Think it was a seventh of her principles which may mean a seventh of each principle. And these were held in Thibet, or something like this? Tony From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 19:40:28 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:18:20 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Re: HPB's eclecticism Message-Id: <199808200018.BAA16394@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> >Let us look at the possible background assumptions that you hold in >regard to your references to scholars and scholarship: > >What "scholars" in particular are you referring to? Are you referring >to such "scholars" like Paul Edwards or Gordon Melton or ? I have found >that far too many of these scholars have biases, etc. of their own by >which they prejudge occult/theosophical ideas and claims. And most of >these so-called scholars/scientists also have a profound ignorance of >these paranormal/occult/theosophical subjects. Daniel Thanks for bringing up the subject of scholarship and for all you write about it. "The Secret Doctrine"/Theosophy has 7 (49) keys, such as symbolism, mathematics, metaphysics, astronomy, logography, ancient science, parable, study, meditation, etc. Scholarship isn't one of them. Mead is seen as a scholar, and hence his inability not to interfere with, and make all those alterations to the SD, thus destroying many of the keys. Some would like a completely unbiased biography of HPB. This is impossible, as to begin to understand HPB and the Masters, it would be necessary to have a deep understanding of Theosophy and occultism.......and then it would no longer be necessary to write the biography. Tony From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 19:55:58 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:18:16 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- not a bad idea Message-Id: <199808200018.BAA16388@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Brant Jackson writes: >Dallas: > You set forth at very detailed list of concepts taught in modern Theosophy >which it offers to the public in plain language for the first time. I agree >that we have gotten much more detail from the S.D. and other Theosophical >works than from the "fragments of an ancient faith", but that is the nature of >secret organizations. > I personally like Barborka's The Divine Plan, a study guide to the S.D., for >the way its organizes and presents these doctrines, starting with the >fundamental propositions, in a gradual and sequential pattern. Given the fact >that the church no longer has the power to burn us at the stake for heresy, >public disclosure is now both possible and necessary. > But I happen to think that Theosophy must be more than study and memorization >of facts. It must be more than a mere body of esoteric knowledge. There is >too much in its literature that stresses that personal self-transformation >through a process of union, [the Path?] is necessary to really understand >[through experience?] the occult truths contained in the S.D. IMHO, the >mystery schools probably taught the process necessary to understand the >knowledge, always a subjective process depending on the development of the >seeker, as well as the knowledge itself. Are we doing this today? An interesting point you make. As tourists we are at different stages in our efforts to find the Path. Studying/meditating the SD (as is going or not going to work for example),is all part of climbing the mountain path, and all that that entails. It offers balanced growth. To develop one aspect at the expense of others causes pain. It is important to appreciate that we have thousands + + + lives, therefore it might be someone's lot to study in this life, another aspect in another. In the Introductory to the SD (xix) when speaking of two Europeans and Col. Olcott: "As permitted, Colonel Olcott has given out some of this teaching in various ways; if the other two have not, it has been simply because they were not allowed: the time for public work having not yet come." Part of practical theosophy is studying/meditating the Theosophical teachings. It is possible to be "part" of that, and that effects our lives, and the lives of those around us. Just some understanding of karma and reincarnation can have a huge effect, but linked in to the other teachings: races, rounds, giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan of various hights, etc., make it all mean a lot more. 4th round/5th race - developing/forming that aspect of MANAS and so on. On theos-talk we tend to see just that theos-talk aspect. Tony From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 20:22:05 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:45:02 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Maya is an Adept Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980820104502.007c4b90@ozemail.com.au> Dallas Wrote : >I DO NOT LIKE TO USE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHIC PRACTICES, BEING UNCERTAIN OF >MY OWN CONTROL OF THEM, AS WELL AS UNCERTAIN OF THE PROFICIENCY OF AN >"OPERATOR" (or "guru"). I have seen and heard of too many serious >imparments of mind and body that have occurred after some misguided >practices were used. So I am very cautious. First I want to understand. >Did you ever read Bulwer-Lytton's ZANONI, or his other A STRANGE STORY ? If >you have you will know one of the reasons why I am so cautious. Dallas, you mentioned Bulwer-Lyttons A STRANGE STORY in another earlier post and your apprehension at 'letting go of everything you know'. You also seem to fear your own abilities and motivation. What are you attached to, If I may ask? Darren From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 20:59:25 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:34:46 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Cayce and the Sphinx Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980820113446.007cbc90@ozemail.com.au> To KPJ, Have you heard any news from the Sphinx dig that would relate to some of Cayces predictions? darren From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 21:14:26 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:52:53 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Replies to Dallas Message-ID: <002101bdcbde$69f6c480$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 19 Aug 19th '98 Dear Jerry: I think we are mainly in agreement. Yes I can see your point that pressed with death as an inevitable, the "little lives" that make up our personality huddle together and resist the change. If it is correct that we have done this thousands of times, why is it that this "fear" still arises -- I have no answer. Twice I have (recently) gone through shortness of breath and "congestive heart failure" because of fluids that accumulate in lungs and around the heart -- I admit there is a "fear." At the time. But when I review this as now, I do not raise a "fear" in my own mind. Very curious. We do not fear going to sleep, in fact we welcome the "break." From: "Jerry Schueler" Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 2:12 PM Subject: Replies to Dallas Dallas: >It makes a difference. Now I understand what you mean by "the abyss." It appears to >be the first apparently disorganized primal condition of manifestation, when the >Universe in "germ" emanates from the ABSOLUTENESS. In SD Vol. I HPB goes into >detail showing what happens next -- how it gets organized under the karma of its past >with the help of the Dhyani Buddhas and the Dhyan Chohans, "Builders," etc.... Sounds like you got it. Dallas: >I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT ENTIRELY. THERE IS A GROWTH OF >AWARENESS AND THE USAGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THAT ASPECT OF THE >MONAD (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) which is ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPING >CONSCOUSNESS OF THE EVOLVING ENTITY -- to KAMA-MANAS as I understand >it, butI could be wrong in this. My question here, is what is the purpose of the whole >scheme if no accretions occur, if no "enlightenment" is the result of so much effort to >achieve self-control, and self-purification, so that working with Nature and her Laws >(Karma) becomes automatic >and voluntary in the evolving entity ? How does this get >answered ? What about all the SKANDHAS >that are drawn together to form the >"personality" each lifetime ? What happens to them ? They also >improve, do they not >? The definition of a monad is an indivisible unit (i.e, not an "aggragrate" in the Buddhist sense) and so Atma-Buddhi-Manas, which is by definition a composite, doesn't qualify to be a monad at all. Your question, if I read it right, if what is the purpose of life? I have already addressed this many times. There are a lot of answers, but the only one that I can accept is for the pure pleasure of self-expression. ================================================ Dallas: What aspect of ourselves "enjoys" self-expresion ? Next: How is that that the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS is able to activate the mind? Why, on our plane should the MONAD not be a triad ? SPIRT is indefinable. Buddhis is said to be the accumulated wisdom of all experience and when active it is the power to perceive the past as recorded in the Akasa. Manas is the active, creative aspect of our nature and serves as the link with the personal material for the Spiritual side. Yes technically if it is 3-fold it is not a UNIT or Monad. In one place HPB indicates that there is only ONE PRINCIPLE ATMA, the Apirit and it has 6 "aspects," or vehicles -- starting with Busddhi - the proceeding to Manas and so on down the line to the physical body. ============================================= >Such a view (including hope that one is not mistaken) seem to dampen >anxiety -- at last for me. First one has to realize and accept the idea >that death is inevitable -- in one way or another. [ Perhaps those who have >had an NDE ---near death experience -- are better equipped than those who >have not, in the sense that they know there is a continuing Egoity or Entity >that survives the "death" of the present body/personality. ] ================================================== Everyone intellectually knows that they will die someday. Acceptance of this is easy intellectually. But when you face the absolute certainty of it, its a different story. I "believe" in life afater death, and I have had an NDE myself. But when I face the Angel of Death directly and squarely, I still cringe with fear. I have also noticed that the fear of death is stronger at night and much less during the day. Could this be CWL's solar globules at work? ======================================== Dallas: And where does HPB speak of "solar globules" == and what would CWL mean by that term ? I really do not know anything about this. =============================================== >Mediative conclusions, and visions emerging from a nights' meditation may >perhaps also be "transpersonal" -- if genuine they get us a memory that is >not affected by the "psychic/personal" filter we use all the time when we >are awake. But it is said that all intuitions and visions ought to be >checked with the active mind for accuracy and their melding with >philosophical and theosophical doctrines. Quite right. >YES, BUT MANAS IS DUAL DEPENDING ON THE ORIENTATION WE GIVE TO IT. >It is the "Lower Manas, immersed in Kama, that is the "Slayer of the Real." >and that "real" is what filtes down to us from the plane of Buddhi-Manas, or >the "Higher Mind." >And as I understand it, that is not to be destoyed but rather studied. Basically what you say here is true, but it is kama-manas that we have to use to put our higher experiences into words. All buddhi-manas experiences must be filtered through kama-manas in order for us to assimilate them and share them with others, and in the process the "spirit" of the experience is destroyed. ========================================== Dallas I agree with this. And apparently it is here and now in our personality with Kama-manas functioning that we have to go about refining and impersonalizing it without in any way losing any of the higher qualities -- love, compassion, courage, protection, etc... It also seems to me that the nature of our equipment (kama-manas) is impaired. Something in us "sees" its condition, and encourages it to make a change. The Kama-Manas must have a "higher aspect" to it --perhaps this is where the linkage to the "Higher manas" is formed. In any case it seems to me that the progress of our own reform is always self-controlled and generated. Does that make sense ? It also seems to me that the HIGHER SELF is that ATMA and tha it is available on request from the Lower self ( the kama-manas ). Best wishes, Dallas ====================================== Jerry S. From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 22:30:15 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:20:05 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: #388 (Spirituality in action) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980819212005.007a1790@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808200122.UAA10693@proteus.imagiware.com> Murray wrote: >Words, of course, are not necessarily excluded from being the appropriate >action at times. Excellent point - and I admit my post sounded as if I was overlooking the power of words and I think, at that moment, I was. An example of the power of words for me personally is reading one of your posts - sure, I wrinkle up with jealousy at your poetic language - but I never feel like I've wasted my time reading one. You really should write more so I can find some flaw of yours and build my self-esteem in pointing out such flaw with much fanfare. If you were TRULY compassionate, you would provide me with that opportunity. Kym From ???@??? Wed Aug 19 23:14:28 1998 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:13:15 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:theosophy Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980819201315.009a96f0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808200018.BAA16388@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> At 01:18 AM 8/20/1998 +0100, you wrote: >Part of practical theosophy is studying/meditating the Theosophical >teachings. It is possible to be "part" of that, and that effects our lives, >and the lives of those around us. Just some understanding of karma and >reincarnation can have a huge effect, but linked in to the other teachings: >races, rounds, giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan of various hights, etc., >make it all mean a lot more. 4th round/5th race - developing/forming that >aspect of MANAS and so on. >On theos-talk we tend to see just that theos-talk aspect. > >Tony One wonders if we go on studying and keep on studying and attending lectures and courses and getting all the certificates signed by *experts* and leaders in organizations so that they can adore the walls of our homes and offices and we keep on meditating, are there any demonstrable results or just keep on doing it in the wishful thinking and hope that one day enlightenment will occur or will be honored with admission to the mystery school(s) ultimately leading to adeptship. What about putting into practice a few of the ideas to help our fellow beings? The latter may do a lot more good to lot more people than all the studies and meditated results. mkr From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 14:29:26 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:19:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Sphinx and MLs Message-Id: <199808201919.PAA08025@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808201400.JAA17896@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 20, 98 09:00:08 am Darren, My latest news about the Sphinx is pretty old-- what was announced at the 1997 Egypt/Atlantis conference in Virginia Beach, which was that a Florida State U. affiliated sonar project had found what they believed to be a 40' by 20' (I think) cavity near the Sphinx. Digging there is out of the question, so I think you misspoke in calling it that. Last year, they had applied for permission to send a probe down a shaft into this space. ARE seems to like to unveil news at these conferences, and the 1998 one was just held. But there is no news in the current Venture Inward about it, which makes me suspect nothing has gone forward. This doesn't surprise me, as non-fulfillment of the Hall of Records discovery prediction is what I expect and said so in the book. WHICH IS SHIPPED TOMORROW!! (From printer to distributor.) Dan, Don't want to get into a back and forth about the Mahatma letters. The question "Who wrote them?" can be taken at several levels: 1) Whose physical handwriting are they in? Haven't a clue, although to my amateur eye the KH letters look like HPB's writing and the M letters like Damodar's. I've seen them in London. However, expert opinion is so divided on this that I have no fixed view. 2) Where do the ideas come from? A large cast of characters, perhaps including Thakar Singh and Ranbir Singh, who might have advised especially at the beginning. But there is such a mixture of Asian and European ideas that they cannot plausibly have come from such a limited number of sources. 3) Who composed them? HPB, mostly, with some help from others like Damodar. Here I find the Hare brothers' arguments about use of language persuasive. I don't wish to argue these points but you asked my opinion. PJ From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 14:59:26 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:54:22 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: The face of God? Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980820135422.007a4440@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808191400.JAA20425@proteus.imagiware.com> NOS wrote: >The most amazing thing about fractal equations is that they have INFINITE >detail. if you construct a fractal on a PC you can zoom ad infinitum >revealing more and more beauty and eventually you would come across every >form that could exist. i tried this for myself once and zoomed a fractal >for over an hour and came across what looked perfectly like a cartoon >mickey mouse. Mickey Mouse? Hmmmm. . .is this a good thing? Kym From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 15:05:40 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:47:13 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Irony, indeed. Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980820134713.007aa790@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808191400.JAA20425@proteus.imagiware.com> Sutratman wrote: >You must have forgotten. My new screen name for Theos-Talk >is Sutratman. I signed off as "Lmhem111" in Theos-Talk >after the chat site fell apart from the Alan Bain controversy. My >identity is known only to Ramadoss, Eldon, yourself and Sophia. >I prefer to remain anonymous because of all personal invective >that goes on in theosophical chat rooms. Something of an irony, >I must say !!! Weellllll. . .if this isn't proof that there's a God, I can't imagine what would be. Kym From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 15:29:26 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:23:11 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Huh? Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980820142311.00796a70@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808191400.JAA20425@proteus.imagiware.com> Mika wrote: >Well, that would make sense with that logic. But,what kind of thoughts >would be our own then? I think, personally, that that is a very interesting question. For example, it is believed by some that schizophrenics or the mentally ill are actually receiving or 'channeling' messages from discarnate beings - if so, is a person REALLY responsible for the crimes they commit? For if they had been born with a more 'open line' to this kind of influence, are they, then indeed, acting on their own? And, conversely, people who say, like Mother Theresa, that they themselves do NOTHING, they are only acting under the "will" of God - in what way are they acting on their own thoughts and direction? I guess one could say the decision is in the CHOICES people make, whether to surrender one's will to God or Hitler or chocolate - maybe that is their own thought, but, still, I fail to see how one could ensure that even our choices are our own. And how much choice takes place while we are incarnate and how much takes place when we are discarnate? Karma, itself, suggests to me that there is a lack of free will - especially if one has already set in motion karmic actions, which, according to some is done while we were still in the bug stage. Well, thank you, Mika, for sending my mind on a convoluted and rather wiggly journey. I have no idea where I'm going or what point I'm trying to make. All I know is if there was only ONE spiritual philosophy, life and thinking sure would be alot simpler. . .but not as fun. Darren, pass me some of that cool gas. Kym From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 15:59:26 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:50:44 PDT From: "Alan E Donant" Subject: Re: Sphinx and MLs Message-ID: <19980820205046.1465.qmail@hotmail.com> Research resource for the production of *The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett* H. P. Blavatsky and the SPR: An Examination of the Hodgson Report of 1885, Vernon Harrison, Theosophical University Press, 1997. Full text available on-line at: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-spr/hpbspr-h.htm Dr. Harrison is a leading counterfeit and forgery expert. He describes the book: "This book is divided into two parts. Part 1 reprints my earlier paper entitled "J'Accuse," published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 53, No. 803 (April 1986), pp. 286-310, plus a few footnotes for clarity's sake. This is, in the main, a study of the Hodgson Report itself, supplemented by as detailed a study of the Mahatma Letters as time and opportunity to visit the British Library permitted. It is reproduced here because the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research does not circulate widely outside the SPR and some libraries. Part 2 describes work done after 1986 and records the findings of a line-by-line microscopical examination of each and every one of the 1,323 color slides in the British Library set. Several pages of these documents are reproduced in this book. Hodgson gave no illustration whatever of the alleged incriminating Blavatsky-Coulomb letters, of which he made much; and the only illustrations of the Mahatma Letters given in his Report are fragments, mostly isolated characters torn from their context and from documents which, for the most part, can neither be identified nor accurately dated." "My conclusions from this examination are: FIRST: The Hodgson Report is not a scientific study. It is more like the address of a counsel for the prosecution who is interested only in evidence, however dubious, which can be made to support his views. Hodgson shows that he was either ignorant or contemptuous of the basic principles of English justice -- and the rest of the Committee seemed little better. As said, he quotes verbal and uncorroborated statements of unnamed witnesses; he cites documents which are neither reproduced in his report nor identifiable; he advances conjecture as established fact; and he makes his handwriting experts change their minds until they give him the answers he wants. The possibility that someone other than HPB could have written the Mahatma Letters was never considered. This list of misdemeanors alone would render the Hodgson Report inadmissible in a court of law. SECOND: In cases where it has been possible to check Hodgson's statements against the direct testimony of the Letters preserved in the British Library, his statements are found to be either false or of no significance in the context. He makes three cardinal statements on which hangs his whole contention that Madame Blavatsky wrote the Mahatma Letters herself with intent to deceive. These I summarize as follows: (i) That there are clear signs of development in the KH handwriting, various strong resemblances to Madame Blavatsky's ordinary handwriting having been gradually eliminated; (ii) That special forms of letters proper to Madame Blavatsky's ordinary writing, and not proper to the KH writing, occasionally appear in the latter; (iii) That there are certain very marked peculiarities of Madame Blavatsky's ordinary writing which appear throughout the KH writing. The first two are demonstrably false; the third could apply to many other writers and does not pinpoint HPB as the writer to the exclusion of all other possible writers. These downright falsities coupled with the procedural errors, make it impossible for me to accept as a fair, impartial statement of fact those parts of the Hodgson Report that I can verify from primary evidence. This being so, I may perhaps be pardoned for regarding with suspicion the remainder of the Hodgson Report for which supporting firsthand evidence is no longer extant. LAST: I find no evidence of common origin of the KH and M scripts and HPB's ordinary, consciously-made handwriting. That is to say, I find no evidence that the Mahatma Letters were written by Madame Blavatsky in a disguised form of her ordinary writing made for fraudulent purposes. What may have come through her hand in trance, dislocation, or other forms of altered consciousness is another matter; but writing so made cannot be classed as either fraud or imposture." The book includes 13 color plates of the Mahatma Letters. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 18:25:38 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:24:45 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Re:theosophy Message-Id: <199808202324.AAA21982@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> >At 01:18 AM 8/20/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>Part of practical theosophy is studying/meditating the Theosophical >>teachings. It is possible to be "part" of that, and that effects our lives, >>and the lives of those around us. Just some understanding of karma and >>reincarnation can have a huge effect, but linked in to the other teachings: >>races, rounds, giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan of various hights, etc., >>make it all mean a lot more. 4th round/5th race - developing/forming that >>aspect of MANAS and so on. >>On theos-talk we tend to see just that theos-talk aspect. >> >>Tony mkr wrote: >One wonders if we go on studying and keep on studying and attending >lectures and courses and getting all the certificates signed by *experts* >and leaders in organizations so that they can adore the walls of our homes >and offices and we keep on meditating, are there any demonstrable results >or just keep on doing it in the wishful thinking and hope that one day >enlightenment will occur or will be honored with admission to the mystery >school(s) ultimately leading to adeptship. We have very different practical experience as to study in conjunction with meditation. >What about putting into practice a few of the ideas to help our fellow >beings? The latter may do a lot more good to lot more people than all the >studies and meditated results. Krishnamurti said something about putting the room in order/cleaning it, opening the window, so that that "something" might come in. Is that any better? How do you see putting into practice a few of the ideas to help our fellow beings? Best wishes Tony From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 18:30:19 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:24:48 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Sphinx and MLs Message-Id: <199808202324.AAA21994@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> The maligning of HPB still goes on. There was a programme about the Buteyko drug-free treatment for asthma sufferers. A doctor submitted two chronic cases, which he could do no more for, for the Buteyko method. When they improved considerably from the treatment, he was still sceptical, even though he could see the improvement with his own eyes. That these folk are able to go back to live relatively normal lives is very bad news for the drug companies. Whatever the evidence some still can't or will not see it. Thanks Alan for setting this out clearly. Tony "Alan Donant" writes: >Research resource for the production of *The Mahatma Letters to A. P. >Sinnett* > >H. P. Blavatsky and the SPR: An Examination of the Hodgson Report of >1885, Vernon Harrison, Theosophical University Press, 1997. > >Full text available on-line at: >http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-spr/hpbspr-h.htm > > >Dr. Harrison is a leading counterfeit and forgery expert. He describes >the book: > >"This book is divided into two parts. Part 1 reprints my earlier paper >entitled "J'Accuse," published in the Journal of the Society for >Psychical Research, Vol. 53, No. 803 (April 1986), pp. 286-310, plus a >few footnotes for clarity's sake. This is, in the main, a study of the >Hodgson Report itself, supplemented by as detailed a study of the >Mahatma Letters as time and opportunity to visit the British Library >permitted. It is reproduced here because the Journal of the Society for >Psychical Research does not circulate widely outside the SPR and some >libraries. > >Part 2 describes work done after 1986 and records the findings of a >line-by-line microscopical examination of each and every one of the >1,323 color slides in the British Library set. Several pages of these >documents are reproduced in this book. Hodgson gave no illustration >whatever of the alleged incriminating Blavatsky-Coulomb letters, of >which he made much; and the only illustrations of the Mahatma Letters >given in his Report are fragments, mostly isolated characters torn from >their context and from documents which, for the most part, can neither >be identified nor accurately dated." > > > >"My conclusions from this examination are: > >FIRST: The Hodgson Report is not a scientific study. It is more like the >address of a counsel for the prosecution who is interested only in >evidence, however dubious, which can be made to support his views. >Hodgson shows that he was either ignorant or contemptuous of the basic >principles of English justice -- and the rest of the Committee seemed >little better. As said, he quotes verbal and uncorroborated statements >of unnamed witnesses; he cites documents which are neither reproduced in >his report nor identifiable; he advances conjecture as established fact; >and he makes his handwriting experts change their minds until they give >him the answers he wants. The possibility that someone other than HPB >could have written the Mahatma Letters was never considered. This list >of misdemeanors alone would render the Hodgson Report inadmissible in a >court of law. > >SECOND: In cases where it has been possible to check Hodgson's >statements against the direct testimony of the Letters preserved in the >British Library, his statements are found to be either false or of no >significance in the context. He makes three cardinal statements on which >hangs his whole contention that Madame Blavatsky wrote the Mahatma >Letters herself with intent to deceive. These I summarize as follows: > >(i) That there are clear signs of development in the KH handwriting, >various strong resemblances to Madame Blavatsky's ordinary handwriting >having been gradually eliminated; > >(ii) That special forms of letters proper to Madame Blavatsky's ordinary >writing, and not proper to the KH writing, occasionally appear in the >latter; > >(iii) That there are certain very marked peculiarities of Madame >Blavatsky's ordinary writing which appear throughout the KH writing. > >The first two are demonstrably false; the third could apply to many >other writers and does not pinpoint HPB as the writer to the exclusion >of all other possible writers. These downright falsities coupled with >the procedural errors, make it impossible for me to accept as a fair, >impartial statement of fact those parts of the Hodgson Report that I can >verify from primary evidence. This being so, I may perhaps be pardoned >for regarding with suspicion the remainder of the Hodgson Report for >which supporting firsthand evidence is no longer extant. > > > >LAST: I find no evidence of common origin of the KH and M scripts and >HPB's ordinary, consciously-made handwriting. That is to say, I find no >evidence that the Mahatma Letters were written by Madame Blavatsky in a >disguised form of her ordinary writing made for fraudulent purposes. >What may have come through her hand in trance, dislocation, or other >forms of altered consciousness is another matter; but writing so made >cannot be classed as either fraud or imposture." > >The book includes 13 color plates of the Mahatma Letters. > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 19:12:58 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:59:43 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: principle retained Message-ID: <1e394f71.35dcb870@aol.com> >>Blavatsky supposedly had a "missing principle" or sub-principle (to insure she >>wouldn't reveal certain things esoterically she knew under the pressures of >>being in the worldly-world), and this is held to be the occult explanation for >>her erratic temperament. >Think it was a seventh of her principles which may mean a seventh of each >principle. And these were held in Thibet, or something like this? >Tony ================================= Thats a possibility I don't remember reading and haven't thought of. I remember the part of the principle or principles "being held in Tibet". It doesn't make sense that it could be a Whole principle, so it must be a subprinciple or parts. Jake J. From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 19:27:59 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:33:21 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Just Say Yes ISIS UNVEILED II 587 - 591 on MAGIC Message-ID: <003401bdcc99$e0beb8a0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 20th 1998 Dallas observes: Re: ISIS UNVEILED II p. 587 -591 on MAGIC Over the pseudonym "Gnosis" some information is sketchily given concerning the magical properties of certain herbs. There are dangers connected with their use, but this is not detailed. One might surmise that this is one of the reasons why "magical knowledge" is not widely diffused. The one who disseminates partial information without details or assistance will undoubtedly be held responsible by Karma for any abuse or misuse of such information. Dallas ====================================== - From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 19:35:42 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:23:50 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: NUMBERS -- their significance Message-ID: <003301bdcc99$df5e3e40$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 20th Dear Paul: Let me add some notes interpolating them in your responses: > Date: Monday, August 17, 1998 11:35 AM > From: "Bazzer (Paul)" > Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya >Dallas wrote: > >> Isn't the inter-relation of numbers and ratios a valuable tool ? > >What is the meaning of "number" in the context of our studies? Is it >symbolic of Hierarchies, Cycles, Beings, states of Consciousness? ================================================ I have assumed that "numbers" play the part of algebraic formulae -- or ratios -- between themselves. I would not imply that Hierarchies, Cycles, Beings are invariably designated by numbers, although I can conceive that in the totality of the Universe some "Number" may be assigned by great Nature to designate one or other of these. If one adopts a certain schedule of relationships, as for instance you will find in early writings between the Mahatmas and Mr. Sinnett one notices there that the 7th principle meant Atma; and the 6th, Buddhi; and the 5th, Manas, and so forth. But that was a kind of shorthand to simplify and speed up communication. In this connection one finds that HPB in later comments states taht the principle of ATMA (spirit) ought to be given Number 1, and the Physical body, the lowest -- # 7, to be consistent with the development of intelligence in a downward sweep. Later when tables were used and agreed on it is conceivable that a similar shorthand was used to desgnate other relationships. I think we ought to take note of such things and see if we can decipher a meaning as to their use. ================================================ > >What is the meaning of "ratio"? An attempt at an example might be: ================================================= A "ratio" to me implies an arithmetical relationship. =================================================== > >There is the Fifth Principle, and the Fifth Hierarchy, and the Fifth >Root Race, and the Fifth Round, and the Fifth Globe etc. etc.. What is >the "ratio" (inter-relation, maybe?) between these? What is the "ratio" >between fifth principle of the average human being and Fifth Principle >of a Master? What is the "ratio" between a Master and Chohan, or a >Master and an ant? Ad infinitum. ============================================== In the diagram on SD I 200 and explanations relative to the Rounds, globes, Races, etc... we find that Round 4th and Globe D (or the 4th thereon) represents the lowest descent into matter. We as a "Race" are said to be the 5th Race -- and therefore are past the mid-point in the sweep of manvantaric evolution a point at which the "Lighting up of Manas" is said to have taken place for those Monads which were destined to become human and move over from their purely "animal stage" development into that of humanity where the mind being lit up responsibility and self-determination become the tools to be used and developed through the process of evolution that pertains there. And we are involved in that. I do hope this is of some help. But really I am of the belief that one has to use the INDEX to the S D and pursue all the correlative references if one desires to secure a survey of the methods employed by HPB and the Masters (who jointly wrote th SD for our use ) to educate us into their information and methods of teaching. And best wishes to you too, Dallas =============================== >All good wishes, >Paul (Bazzer) > > > > From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 19:39:11 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:44:18 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: The idea of Meditation and Practice Message-ID: <003201bdcc99$dce994c0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 20th Dallas offers: MKR;s positing started me thinking: I ask myself the following questions and try to find answers from what I have learned from studying Theosophy: -- What is it in us that urges us to seek to learn and to "meditate ?" Why, also is there a "feeling" that we ought to practice some of what we learn either by "study" (other's ideas) of "meditating" on those around us, or on our own ? MKR suggests the practice of benevolence, brotherhood, compassion appears to be the way to be and act out what we learn. When we consider the nature and make-up of Man -- considered Theosophically -- as a seven-fold being, ( a miniature copy of the great Universe ) we can take into consideration what Theosophy has to say on an applications of this knowledge. [ I will try to condense (as best I understand them) some of the many statements one finds in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY and the SECRET DOCTRINE. ] The Theosophical scheme views, metaphysically, as a prime starting point, the prevalence of SPIRIT as an Ideal condition and posits its eternity, universality and immeasurable "being." It is outside the range of any finite or limited thinking, but, it is necessary as a "background" from which all limitations emerge. It is not a "god," but it is Divinity, as a concept of "perfection" which can be attained by certain methods of self-education and self-discipline. Actually HPB says that before "Spirit-in-manifestation" there is the ABSOLUTENESS, concerning which nothing can be said as no comparisons are possible. Every being in such grand periods are "limitations" ( during the period of manifestations/evolution ). And every being inescapably bathes in it, the One spirit. It is the inescapable component ( "root" ) of the BEING/existence of all things. In manifestation it has as a polar opposite: "Matter," or rather, the "root of matter." Next in "reality" is Law/Karma. This is the Cause, and highest basis for manifestation. In terms of metaphysics, Theosophy advances the concept of "Root-Matter ( or Mulaprakriti/Maha-Buddhi ) which is moved by Law. This "principle" or "aspect" of Spirit-Matter emerges when manifestation occurs. Matter is inseparable from Spirit. And both are under LAW -- the eternal Causeless-Cause. Matter, as concurrent with Spirit is an imperishable base for periodical manifestations The characteristic symbol of Buddhi is "sound" or "Speech" -- vibration in the abstract. It is also (passively) a record of all History and every event of life is known to, and in it -- it reads and uses the Akas (the 7th and highest aspect of the "Astral Light"). The "Wisdom of Experience" is its active aspect, it is the source of our "Voice of Conscience." It is the source of "intuition." Concurrent with Atman/Spirit and Buddhi/wisdom and experience, is the universal principle of Mahat -- the root of Manas/Mind, the "thinking, creative," aspect or principle. [ Mankind, the whole of humanity and every one of its billions, is endowed with the power to think, to observe, to inquire, to learn. ] The quality of Mahat is that which builds and creates out of "chaos" or the "abyss of unformed "matter" the limitations and forms of various kinds -- this is done from the impulse of Karma/Law inasmuch as the unexpended effects of earlier manifestations need to be resolved. Each fresh Manvantara (evolutionary period) flows forth in limited Time (out of immeasurable Duration). Each new period is the "child" of a previous one. Each "being" in manifestation is a "child" of its own past being. Nothing is annihilated. The Law or KARMA is seen to operate in this, and involves the unexpended energies of innumerable "beings" of all grades (from the Buddhas and the Dhyan Chohans, the Mahatmas and the whole range of Adepts to the most ignorant and truly commencing minds -- the "babies" in which the potential of thinking is beginning to emerge). This accounts for the three highest aspects of manifestation: Atman - Universal and individual Spirit; Buddhi - Universal and individual Wisdom/Law in operation; and, Mahat/Manas/mind - the power to think and to decide on actions. One could say the Unity bifurcates, and the bifurcation is united by the 3rd aspect of permanency. In manifestation they form a Unity which is tripartite (for purposes of understanding its operations). One might say that it is the MONAD in its manifesting condition as Three-in-One. If we consider "Matter" as the other extreme of manifestation/evolution, as Theosophy advances it, we have Root Matter, undifferentiated, chaotic and apparently "lawless." Yet the whole manifested Universe is ruled by eternal Law, so even apparent chaos is the condition of units of "matter" (in themselves forces, energies and powers) seeking to form intelligent links with other aspects, other units, so that Life and Law, already active and present, can either make or find "forms" in which to work and improve, or "manifest." In the first Volume of the "Secret Doctrine" we are given a survey of this development. It is shown ( SD I 181) that there are 3 lines of evolution the Monadic, the Intellectual/mental, and the Physical/material. These interblend. High intelligences, that once were men like we us, have achieved the responsibility of assisting Karma in its work. [ To me this implies that I ought to learn what the laws of Nature (Karma) are, and then voluntarily try to comply, assist and follow them. ] It is shown how those "Divine Men" -- the Dhyan Chohans (Lords of Wisdom), and the Dhyani Buddhas (Enlightened Wise), (and all other hierarchies of Divine Beings), are each responsible for some aspect of cooperative development and organizing (under Karma) of the chaotic "matter" of a new Manvantara (period of Evolution). They are Men, once like ourselves in our present condition, who resolved to become wise, studied Nature (which contains all) and learned her rules, laws and operations -- in all departments, visible and invisible. Are we not trying to do this ? The Matter side of Nature (the Universe, our World and Earth) consists of several aspects or "principles." We recognize our own physical frame-work and that comparable physical aspects of minerals, vegetables, animals. Then, we have the great elements we designate earth, water, air, and fire. We say those are the conditions under which the natural physical/chemical elements and their compounds can be found under present conditions of matter (heat, pressure, electrical and magnetic conditions that we call "normal" for our present living). We surmise that the rest of the Universe may be in comparable but not necessarily identical conditions. What is not yet entirely clear to us, that which Science investigates, is the realm of cause, and the forces that unite various components into a coherent whole. What causes certain molecules and atoms to aggregate ? Why are some rejected ? What are the forces of intelligence that draw certain molecules, cells, etc... together to form the specialized organs of our own bodies, as an instance ? In considering this Theosophy speaks of the next material component -- the realm of force and energy, of attraction and repulsion, and gives this the designation of the "Astral Light." Each human under the law of his personal evolution is said to be endowed with a formative and creative "Astral Body." This astral body has many properties -- the providing of a living lattice-work upon which the physical molecules and the metaphysical atoms of physical living are accumulated and arranged, is one of them. In addition, it is said to be the repository of the Karma of our present incarnation, and serves as a base for the roll-over of Karma from previous incarnations to merge with our present. It is invisible, elastic, and provides the instant contact with mind and feeling/emotion that enables communication with all other intelligent structures and beings in our Universe. It is the area where we are most alive, and yet it is one that we know only the fringes of. Next is the vast Life-principle, that which animates and enlivens all beings. Each Sun, (and each of the many planets on which man-like intelligence develops), is said to be the focus for this energy that emanates from the ONE SPIRIT (and for each Manvantara this is focussed in a center called the CENTRAL SPIRITUAL SUN). Each human being has as his metaphysical center a corresponding focus (or "heart") -- a radiant living Being, which we may call our HIGHER SELF. It gives us life, and serves as the repository on the metaphysical side of our individual/personal karma. This Life-energy is creative and causative and engages in every aspect of our living. It is referred to as a generic as Fohat -- and each of us is a "child of Fohat," from that point of view. As life in material forms develops, we can see that it patterns itself on the astral model that karma provides; the pattern of our life-energy is an intelligence that links the physical to the astral, and both of them to the One Energy of our Universe. As evolution proceeds the principle of desire and feeling, or sensation, also progresses. It is the dominant aspect of animal intelligence and is often referred to as instinct. In Theosophical metaphysics this is named Kama, or "passions and desires." As a purely material development it would be chaotic indeed, although regulated by certain basic impulses which manifest as contrasting pairs -- such as: love - hate; compassion - tyranny; calmness -- anger; dispassion -- impatience; unselfishness -- pride; generosity -- avarice; wisdom -- information; creative activity -- sloth and indifference; ...and so on. The whole assemblage of emotion as contrasted with reason and dispassion may be included in this "principle" which is the highest aspect of evolution considered from the material side. But, in mankind we cannot consider the material in isolation from the Mind or the Wise aspects of evolution. Law/karma pervades all and the wisdom of experience organizes the conditions of living so that we may be presented not only with the just results of our earlier choices, but with adequate opportunities for further advance in experience and the acquiring of wisdom. And this, at last, brings us to the reasons for (as I see it ) MKR's statement. It is only in Theosophy that we find a coherent and reasonable base for considering ethical motives and opportunities as part of our on-going and ever expanding learning experience as human beings -- as mind-beings encased in various conditions and forms of matter. The question arises: why are we so encased ? As we progress in life and grow in understanding, we recognize that we are influencing not only those around us who are mind beings, but we are impressing our sheaths, or vehicles (consisting of the Skandhas or "little lives") wit the quality of our motives, our emotions, our thoughts, feelings and acts. We either elevate them in moral tone or we debase them. At all times we are aware of this as kind of flash of questioning presents itself to us just as we are about to make a decision. The "voice of Conscience" speaks -- and we either listen or turn a deaf ear to it. Theosophy (I believe) offers us a further vista. We are, it states, comparative in our creative and formative power to the Dhyan Chohans when we exercise the power of choice in regard to those aspects of matter that have a lower level of experience and entitative intelligence as compared to ours -- to the "little lives" (the living "skandhas") -- the intelligent centers of force that make up our "lower principles." If this is true, then our power to create for billions of these little lives conditions of progress or of retrogression indicates our responsibility to them and to the rest of Nature. We either attune ourselves voluntarily to the creative aspect of Nature, or we participate in retardation and the 'destructive" side -- which is ever "at war" with the constructive side. The BHAGAVAD GITA illustrates this situation -- and also provides information for altering and changing our position as our wisdom grows. ] I hope this consideration may be of use. Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 9:23 PM > From: "M K Ramadoss" > Subject: Re:theosophy >At 01:18 AM 8/20/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>Part of practical theosophy is studying/meditating the Theosophical >>teachings. It is possible to be "part" of that, and that effects our lives, >>and the lives of those around us. Just some understanding of karma and >>reincarnation can have a huge effect, but linked in to the other teachings: >>races, rounds, giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan of various hights, etc., >>make it all mean a lot more. 4th round/5th race - developing/forming that >>aspect of MANAS and so on. >>On theos-talk we tend to see just that theos-talk aspect. >> >>Tony ======================================= >One wonders if we go on studying and keep on studying and attending >lectures and courses and getting all the certificates signed by *experts* >and leaders in organizations so that they can adore the walls of our homes >and offices and we keep on meditating, are there any demonstrable results >or just keep on doing it in the wishful thinking and hope that one day >enlightenment will occur or will be honored with admission to the mystery >school(s) ultimately leading to adeptship. > >What about putting into practice a few of the ideas to help our fellow >beings? The latter may do a lot more good to lot more people than all the >studies and meditated results. > >mkr > SNIP From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 19:57:59 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:42:52 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: Mediums vs. Mediators Message-ID: <35DCC28B.27EBB685@usa.net> References: <199808191312.JAA04142@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > But you > cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep > trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who > consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is > channeling something higher and better. I agree with this statement, but also with its opposite, which would be something like: >you > cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep > trance is channeling something positive, while everyone who > consciously "mediates" (which is what ECP claims to do) is > channeling something lower and less desirable. Bjorn From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 20:02:55 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:51:00 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re: A difference between Message-ID: <35DCC474.A3ABECBA@usa.net> References: <1c920692.35d9e445@aol.com> Barkus23@aol.com wrote: > > No I don't regard Blavatsky as a channeler. As you probably know, > there is a very important difference between a "mediator" and a "medium" > (channeler.) The mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control and > possession of their faculties - while in most mediumship, the channeler goes > into some nature of trance state (often assumed possibly.) Mediatorship is a > heighted state of personal awareness, while mediumship is a lowered state of > personal awareness, with the medium even not retaining any memory sometimes. > The mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or Higher > Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or black. I agree with you that the distinction you make is an important one. From all I have heard and my own tuning in to the subject it appears to me that the Masters are highly unlikely to use trance mediums to convey their messages. But, in the name of fairness, this does not necessarily mean that every thing channeled "Cayce style" is "wrong", "false" or "bad". There can still be a lot of valuable information that can be tapped into through trance mediumship. However, the adepts warn against it because of dangers in the process. Bjorn From ???@??? Thu Aug 20 23:24:47 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 23:12:50 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Re:theosophy Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980820231250.016306d0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808202324.AAA21982@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> At 12:24 AM 8/21/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>At 01:18 AM 8/20/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>>Part of practical theosophy is studying/meditating the Theosophical >>>teachings. It is possible to be "part" of that, and that effects our lives, >>>and the lives of those around us. Just some understanding of karma and >>>reincarnation can have a huge effect, but linked in to the other teachings: >>>races, rounds, giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan of various hights, etc., >>>make it all mean a lot more. 4th round/5th race - developing/forming that >>>aspect of MANAS and so on. >>>On theos-talk we tend to see just that theos-talk aspect. >>> >>>Tony > >mkr wrote: >>One wonders if we go on studying and keep on studying and attending >>lectures and courses and getting all the certificates signed by *experts* >>and leaders in organizations so that they can adore the walls of our homes >>and offices and we keep on meditating, are there any demonstrable results >>or just keep on doing it in the wishful thinking and hope that one day >>enlightenment will occur or will be honored with admission to the mystery >>school(s) ultimately leading to adeptship. > >We have very different practical experience as to study in conjunction with >meditation. > >>What about putting into practice a few of the ideas to help our fellow >>beings? The latter may do a lot more good to lot more people than all the >>studies and meditated results. > >Krishnamurti said something about putting the room in order/cleaning it, >opening the window, so that that "something" might come in. Is that any >better? > >How do you see putting into practice a few of the ideas to help our fellow >beings? > >Best wishes >Tony I am always on the look out for opportunities to help fellow beings as best as I can. mkr From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 02:39:47 1998 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:28:44 -0700 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Amma Message-ID: <35DC950C.58DE@dlc.fi> References: <199808200122.UAA10693@proteus.imagiware.com> mrk wrote: > > >My girlfriend and I were yesterday at Helsinki where Mata > >Amritanandamayi or 'Mother Amma' gave a darshan. Her 'darshan' was > >hugging people and she was very real with it. She is very compassionate > >IMHO and does much social work in India and I can think her as a 'highly > >spiritual person'. Whether she`s an avatara like people around her said, > >I have no idea, or any means to authenticate, but it`s not relevant > >IMHO. > > > >>mika > > A few days ago, a long time friend of mine who had known "Mother Amma" over > 10 years. He indicated that when she delivers her lectures you could see a > dramatic change in her personality. I do not know what the mechanism is -- > channelling or mediumship. I also do not know if the entity which is taking > control is highly evolved or not. We were sitting so far to be able to see anything like that. > BTW, what do you think is the reason for the tremendous interest in her? > Any ideas? Well, she is an Indian 'guru' who is very dedicated to her work with the poor and children, and she gives you (and everybody else) the feeling that you are the most important person in earth and her compassion for everyone seems endless. (after 6 hours of hugging and comforting she is ready for another 6 hours if necessary). Any more ideas? From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 06:24:50 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:07:07 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Re: Spirituality in Action Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980821230707.007aab80@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808201400.JAA17896@proteus.imagiware.com> Kym I don't know how to break this gently to you, but do you realize *you* are building up *my* self-esteem, writing like that? I don't think you should do that kind of thing round here; it doesn't fit in with the group. I have a confession to make, too; there are times when you arouse in me feelings of envy. Envy of your own colorful, resourceful, cheeky, perceptive, honest and illuminating writing. I don't think I can reach the heights of compassion you ask of me, but you've shown me a goal to strive for. Meanwhile, I just have this kind of scared feeling about what you'd do with me if I did write more. Bullshit aside, Kym, I enjoyed your piece mightily. Thanks. You're no mean wordsmith yourself. Go well. Murray >Murray wrote: > >>Words, of course, are not necessarily excluded from being the appropriate >>action at times. > >Excellent point - and I admit my post sounded as if I was overlooking the >power of words and I think, at that moment, I was. > >An example of the power of words for me personally is reading one of your >posts - sure, I wrinkle up with jealousy at your poetic language - but I >never feel like I've wasted my time reading one. > >You really should write more so I can find some flaw of yours and build my >self-esteem in pointing out such flaw with much fanfare. If you were TRULY >compassionate, you would provide me with that opportunity. > > >Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 07:14:14 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 07:07:32 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Amma Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980821070732.0143fcd0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <35DC950C.58DE@dlc.fi> References: <199808200122.UAA10693@proteus.imagiware.com> At 02:28 PM 8/20/1998 -0700, you wrote: >mrk wrote: >> >> >My girlfriend and I were yesterday at Helsinki where Mata >> >Amritanandamayi or 'Mother Amma' gave a darshan. Her 'darshan' was >> >hugging people and she was very real with it. She is very compassionate >> >IMHO and does much social work in India and I can think her as a 'highly >> >spiritual person'. Whether she`s an avatara like people around her said, >> >I have no idea, or any means to authenticate, but it`s not relevant >> >IMHO. >> > >> >>mika >> >> A few days ago, a long time friend of mine who had known "Mother Amma" over >> 10 years. He indicated that when she delivers her lectures you could see a >> dramatic change in her personality. I do not know what the mechanism is -- >> channelling or mediumship. I also do not know if the entity which is taking >> control is highly evolved or not. > >We were sitting so far to be able to see anything like that. > > >> BTW, what do you think is the reason for the tremendous interest in her? >> Any ideas? > >Well, she is an Indian 'guru' who is very dedicated to her work with the >poor and children, and she gives you (and everybody else) the feeling >that you are the most important person in earth and her compassion for >everyone seems endless. (after 6 hours of hugging and comforting she is >ready for another 6 hours if necessary). > >Any more ideas? My friend also told me about her endurance in her hugging and comforting. She has a hospital in India which serves the poor and my friend's son who was educated in the US is currently working in the hospital even though he as a physician can make a lot of money in the US. I was also told when Amma came to the US about 10 years ago, she was not much known and hence the number of people who usually attended her gatherings were very small. It is amazing that she is attracting such large number of people whereever she goes. mkr From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 07:58:12 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:48:17 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: NUMBERS, FRACTALS, etc. Message-ID: <00d201bdcd02$420b2fe0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 21st Dallas wonders if it is possible to receive one of these factors/formulae that enable the viewing of fractals on one's computer. What colors can one assign to them ? As to numbers and numerals, the S D INDEX gives numerous interesting references, which can be correlated with those on "Symbols" Apparently numbers, cycles, law, karma, geometry, arithmetic, algebra are all intimately related. SD and ISIS were found to offer many keys and illustrations which can occupy a student many hours of interesting research. Dallas > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 7:40 PM > From: "Darren Porter" > Subject: Re: Motorin' to the Masters >The closest mathematical equation, IMO, to an approximation of reality is >the Fractal set equation. >> From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:08:59 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:05:34 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Mediator & Mediums Message-ID: <00d701bdcd02$489fc1e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 21st The reference to a "missing" principle in the case of HPB is to be found in MAHATMA LETTERS. p. 203, bottom -- for two reasons: 1 -- communications, and 2 - preservation of secrecy. Other pages that can be referred to to secure a better picture of how the Mahatmas regarded HPB are: 256 312 314-5 386 272 263 10 31 Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 5:41 PM > From: "Alpha (Tony)" > Subject: Re: Mediator & Mediums > Jake J.writes: > >>Blavatsky supposedly had a "missing principle" or sub-principle (to insure she >>wouldn't reveal certain things esoterically she knew under the pressures of >>being in the worldly-world), and this is held to be the occult explanation for >>her erratic temperament. >Think it was a seventh of her principles which may mean a seventh of each >principle. And these were held in Thibet, or something like this? > >Tony > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:09:47 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:40:58 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: GIANTS ? [ from D.Porter -- NOS ] Message-ID: <00d101bdcd02$40cdcde0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 21st 1998 Dallas offers: "D.Porter (NOS)" writes asking about evidence on the archeological remains of the human form when it was gigantic. I opened the INDEXES to S D and ISIS UNVEILED -- there seem to be many references there to "giants." I recall that in early issues of THEOSOPHY magazine [Los Angeles] I found some references made by scientists (archaeologists and geologists) to "Giant fossils found in the Grand Canyon of Arizona -- and Havasupai Canyon. " THY MAG. Vol. 11, pp. 386, 526 [ Discovery of Dr. Hubbard of San Francisco ] Vol. 11, p. 191 [ Dr. Osborn on ] THY MAG. Vol. 12, p. 377 THY MAG Vol. 13, pp. 281, 360, 402-3; [ Dr. Osborn on p. 567 ] THY MAG. Vol. 14, p. 380 THY MAG. Vol. 16, p. 236 THY MAG. Vol. 17, pp. 235-7, 277-8; THY MAG. Vol. 25. pp. 138-9 THY MAG. Vol. 34 pp. 357, 439 [ Dr. Hubbard on Gigantic Skeleton ] THY MAG. Vol. 35 pp. 184 [ same ] THY MAG. Vol. 34 pp. 357, 439 THY MAG. Vol. 35 pp. 184, THY MAG. Vol. 53 p. 221 [ Giants builders of Stonehenge ] LUCIFER Vol. 10, p 358 [ Giant skeletons under stalagmites 100,000 yrs ] LUCIFER Vol. 13 p. 91 [ Giants builders of the Ohio Mounds ] LUCIFER Vol. 7 p. 436 more details Hope these may be of help Dallas > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 7:35 PM > From: "Darren Porter" > Subject: We only need to prove one thing >It occurred to me today that if we can conclusively prove the existence of >Giants then that would be the foot in the door so to say of getting the >rest of the world to accept the theosophical version of evolution. > >There must be a lot of supressed evidence but there is still so many 'extra >large' archeological finds that don't seem to match the building dimensions >that humans would use at our height. I would like to collate a database of >such locations so if any one would like to post them here I would be grateful. > >BTW, Has anyone read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? > >NOS > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:13:00 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:13:15 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- not a bad idea Message-ID: <00d801bdcd02$49deaa80$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 21 st Dear Tony: Enjoyed your comments -- mostly to agree in our views The graduated statues are at Bamian on the North side of the Hindu Kush mountains. I was several times in Afghanistan in the Winter when, unfortunately the passes (at 14,000 feet) were deeply snow-bound and I was unable to cross and see them. I was not able to pay a visit in summer, when I might have been able. In the S D these are referred to in Vol. II 338. Some years ago the National Geographic had an issue in which they featured many of the statues in photographs. Very interesting. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 6:04 PM > From: "Alpha (Tony)" > Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- not a bad idea > Brant Jackson writes: > >>Dallas: >> You set forth at very detailed list of concepts taught in modern Theosophy >>which it offers to the public in plain language for the first time. I agree >>that we have gotten much more detail from the S.D. and other Theosophical >>works than from the "fragments of an ancient faith", but that is the nature of >>secret organizations. >> I personally like Barborka's The Divine Plan, a study guide to the S.D., for >>the way its organizes and presents these doctrines, starting with the >>fundamental propositions, in a gradual and sequential pattern. Given the fact >>that the church no longer has the power to burn us at the stake for heresy, >>public disclosure is now both possible and necessary. >> But I happen to think that Theosophy must be more than study and memorization >>of facts. It must be more than a mere body of esoteric knowledge. There is >>too much in its literature that stresses that personal self-transformation >>through a process of union, [the Path?] is necessary to really understand >>[through experience?] the occult truths contained in the S.D. IMHO, the >>mystery schools probably taught the process necessary to understand the >>knowledge, always a subjective process depending on the development of the >>seeker, as well as the knowledge itself. Are we doing this today? > >An interesting point you make. As tourists we are at different stages in our >efforts to find the Path. Studying/meditating the SD (as is going or not >going to work for example),is all part of climbing the mountain path, and >all that that entails. It offers balanced growth. To develop one aspect at >the expense of others causes pain. It is important to appreciate that we >have thousands + + + lives, therefore it might be someone's lot to study in >this life, another aspect in another. In the Introductory to the SD (xix) >when speaking of two Europeans and Col. Olcott: "As permitted, Colonel >Olcott has given out some of this teaching in various ways; if the other two >have not, it has been simply because they were not allowed: the time for >public work having not yet come." >Part of practical theosophy is studying/meditating the Theosophical >teachings. It is possible to be "part" of that, and that effects our lives, >and the lives of those around us. Just some understanding of karma and >reincarnation can have a huge effect, but linked in to the other teachings: >races, rounds, giant stone Buddhas in Afghanistan of various hights, etc., >make it all mean a lot more. 4th round/5th race - developing/forming that >aspect of MANAS and so on. >On theos-talk we tend to see just that theos-talk aspect. > >Tony > > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:17:57 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:46:26 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Maya is an Adept Message-ID: <00d901bdcd02$4b1d9320$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 21st Dear Darren: When I was a lad of about 12 I thought I had learned enough about swimming in sea water so that I could swim anywhere. I jumped into a pool of fresh water and promptly sank, lost my head and almost drowned. Fortunately a friend was with me and hauled me out. It was a great lesson. While anxious to understand all I can from those who write reports, I do not think it entitles me to jump in "over my head." again. I have had the inestimable good fortune this life to travel widely all over the world in many strange and exotic countries, and when there I made it a point to study what I could of their religion, history, beliefs, and customs, so that I would better understand them and not violate any of their taboos, if any. I found that this served as a key to making many lasting friendships. >From the reading of ISIS, SD, and HPB's articles, and what Judge has to say about the Astral and Psychic Planes in OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY I have a great respect for what is/might be there. In India where I spent much of my life (35 years or more) information about the psychic and the "spiritual" world was so common that it was "no special news" to be talking and inquiring into it with almost anyone with whom one set up an acquaintance. Let me say that my inquiries showed that there was much to be learned and also much to be guarded against. HPB in CAVES & JUNGLES OF HINDOOSTAN and in her PEOPLE OF THE BLUE MOUNTAINS gives some more data, and she certainly gives vivid illustrations in her NIGHTMARE TALES. In addition to Bulwer-Lytton's A STRANGE STORY there is ZANONI. H. Rider-Haggard also wrote generally on the same theme in SHE and AEYSHA, and also in KING SOLOMON'S MINES. The writers of Science Fiction grind out dozens of books with the magic/psychic/spiritualistic themes running through them. There is a writer that currently has several "best sellers" to his credit in which he deals with some of the nastier aspects of Kama-Loka and the vampirish conscienceless Kama-Rupas that inhabit it, and which on occasion can be made to inhabit a discarded human form again -- and so on. I would say that for the uninitiated and the non-powerful in those matters (and I am one of them, believe me) the danger is so apparent that I would be foolish indeed to adventure my sanity in a pursuit of some sensation there in an area where I would have so little control. Control is to my way of thinking the key to any true advance in wisdom and living. The opposite is passivity, and although there are many reports of fine things seen and exciting adventures, colors, sounds, sensations -- those are, when all is said and done, SENSATIONS. They do not educate, they AMUSE. They are distractions, and as such have very little continuing or lasting value -- that, is, to me. Why should I generate a curiosity in that which is dangerous ? I watch with amazement a growing trend among many who live here to do dangerous things. Why this urge ? Does not sound very sane to me. So, if Theosophy, in all its original and core writings, advocates abstinence in regard to the astral and spiritualism, I would, as far as my attitude is concerned, adopt the (to me) prudent policy of avoidance. I say this clearly, as it is a conclusion that has been reinforced many times by accounts that I have heard, and certain situations that I have witnessed, that show me the validity of the theosophical cautions advanced. Hence I would not advocate any kind of experiment. I would avoid any psychism as far as possible, and I would try to control my own emotional impulses and learn why and how they originate, and which are useful and which are not. And you may accuse me of cowardice in this area and I would agree to the charge. But I do not have to prove that fire burns or water wets, and when I find some of my acquaintances undergoing vast changes in character as a result of dabbling in psychism and "spiritualism," "channeling," etc... I think I have enough evidence to keep away from that kind of experience, although I may read of and study it. I hope that is a clear expression of my position and condition on this matter. Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 6:36 PM > From: "Darren Porter" > Subject: Maya is an Adept >Dallas Wrote : >>I DO NOT LIKE TO USE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHIC PRACTICES, BEING UNCERTAIN OF >>MY OWN CONTROL OF THEM, AS WELL AS UNCERTAIN OF THE PROFICIENCY OF AN >>"OPERATOR" (or "guru"). I have seen and heard of too many serious >>imparments of mind and body that have occurred after some misguided >>practices were used. So I am very cautious. First I want to understand. >>Did you ever read Bulwer-Lytton's ZANONI, or his other A STRANGE STORY ? If >>you have you will know one of the reasons why I am so cautious. > >Dallas, you mentioned Bulwer-Lyttons A STRANGE STORY in another earlier >post and your apprehension at 'letting go of everything you know'. You also >seem to fear your own abilities and motivation. What are you attached to, >If I may ask? > >Darren > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:20:55 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:56:33 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: Approaching the Adepts Message-ID: <00d601bdcd02$47300540$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 21st 1998 Dear Murray: Enjoyed your comments on mine on "meeting Adepts." Personally, the reason why I refer to the core or original texts is because they convey so much. We may think a lot of things but is our thought "on line?" Having found out how valuable Theosophy is I frequently revisit old friends and review what I have learned in terms of what I looked at earlier -- a kind of consolidation. Is it still true ? As to the Bridge building. I agree that it is from both sides. But it is important to grasp that the potentials are not only inside us, primarily, but also in every other being (mankind included) which seem so "outside" to our usual "personal" view. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 3:48 PM > From: "Murray Stentiford" > Subject: Re: Approaching the Adepts >Dallas > >This reply is so long in the coming that most could be forgiven for having >forgotten what the relevant thread of discussion was all about. As usual, >time pressures and computer problems ... Anyway: > >Thanks for your thoughtful reply on approaching the Adepts. There was much >that I agreed with or found expressed in a fresh and significant way. > >I particularly liked the way you saw this as a work of carving a bridge >that leads to the ineffable which is Within. A great metaphor for a great >reality. > >As to how, as you ask - perhaps it could be put that the Bridge is built >from both sides at once in subtle tendrils that gradually turn into strong >beams. The higher reaching to the lower, the lower reaching to the higher, >until a grand synthesis or integration has appeared. > >And, curiously, while it is essential to seek knowledge and be clear in >mind, there is a need for a deep trust (not talking about blind belief in a >dogma, sort of thing) in one way or another, at the tendril-building stage, >while the centre of gravity of consciousness is shifting to a very >different basis from what it has been accustomed to. Whether this is in a >teacher, or a heart-sensed spiritual reality, we all envision it in our own >ways. I could go on, but will leave the rest to others' imaginations. > >Oh, I have The Key to Theosophy - it's a few decades now since I first met >it. For me, on my particular path of growth and service, it is important to >try to put timeless verities in fresh language, because of the human >propensity to crystallize forms around them, and because there is always >another slant that we may not have already seen. While greatly respecting >and appreciating the pioneering forms of those who have gone before. > >Best wishes > >Murray > > >>Aug 12th 1998 >> >>Dear Murray: >> >>I have never found a quick answer to your question as to how to draw close >>to the Masters. But wiser ones than I have said that it should be our aim >>to do that. >> >>1. The proximity of "Masters" is not a physical but a psychological >>distance, as you seem to intuit (and as I would estimate it). >> >>It you take into account the 7-fold divisions of Man and Kosmos you will see >>that ATMA (Spirit) and BUDDHI (Wisdom) are common -- How does the embodied >>consciousness (you and me as we now are) or Kama-Manas approach to >>Atma-Buddhi ? How does the personal self, involved in the "1000 chords of >>desire" separate itself from those, and become One-centered on learning the >>TRUTH of all things ? >> >>The "bridge" is the HIGHER MANAS. HPB defines this in the KEY rather well >>and thoroughly. I suppose you have that book for reference ? >> >>For Kama-Manas ( or Lower manas) to contact the Master ( Atma-Buddhi) it has >>to fist grasp the idea that that Master is interior. It has been called the >>HIGHER SELF. Next, as I see it, it has to embody as practice in daily life, >>the ethics and rules of the life of a Manasic being. Briefly described, >>this is harmlessness, compassion and brotherhood. >> >>In other words it carves for itself out of its own material the bridge that >>lads it to the ineffable which is WITHIN. >> >>The Great Adepts whom we call Mahatmas, or Masters of Wisdom are Those who >>have successfully done this work. They are named variously as Adepts, >>Brothers, Mahatmas, Masters, Bodhisattvas, Arhats, Buddhas, Dhyan Chohans, >>etc... names that indicate their powers and functions -- and with which we >>are not directly concerned, as our present field of work is our own >>personality, which we need to study, understand and learn how to control. >> >>We are the beginners. Part of our progress on this great and uniform path >>is learning what we are, who we are and what we can do with the potential >>and actual powers we already possess. In other words a large portion of the >>work is self-initiation. >> >>Consider the vast mass of HPB's writings. How many of us have set to work >>to actually, in this incarnation, acquire a superficial working knowledge of >>what she wrote on behalf of the Adepts. Why did she do it ? What had the >>Adepts to profit from that arduous work ? What is our benefit? and, what >>is our responsibility ? How do we change "superficial" interest into >>convinced practice ? >> >>These and many more ideas I derive from my studies. I can only offer some >>of these and they should only be taken as the opinions of one person and >>subject to faults and therefore carefully scrutinized. >> >>Hope this is of some help, >> >>Dallas > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:21:39 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:56:10 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: Mediums vs. Mediators & the Psychic World, Spiritualism, etc. Message-ID: <00d301bdcd02$4317bde0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 21st 1998 In addition to the suggestions that Daniel Caldwell offers one might like to make a quick review of the subjects and this can be done by opening W. Q. Judge's THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY and reading Chapter 16 on PSYCHIC LAWS, FORCES & PHENOMENA; and Chapter 17 on PSYCHIC PHENOMENA AND SPIRITUALISM As a preliminary one ought to consult in the same short book: Chapter 5, BODY AND ASTRAL BODY Chapter 12 KAMA-LOKA I find those most helpful in identifying the range and the laws that operate in the "Astral or Psychic Plane." Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 8:06 AM > From: "Daniel H Caldwell" > Subject: Re: Mediums vs. Mediators >Paul & Jake have brought up an interesting subject. > >One could write a huge book on what Blavatsky & the Mahatmas said about >Mediumship, Seership, Mediatorship, Psychism and related topics. >I believe even most Blavatksy students don't realize the profundity of >what is found on these subjects in the HPB/Mahatma writings. > >In order to appreciate much of what is written by HPB on these subjects, >one needs a background in Spiritualism, psychical >research/parapsychology, mysticism, magic, psychology, tranpersonal >psychology, etc. A good knowledge of early Theosophical history >wouldn't hurt either! > >I think Paul is very correct when he makes the observation: > >> But you >> cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep >> trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who >> consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is >> channeling something higher and better. > >Paul also comments: > >> Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or >> negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the >> means whereby they are contacted. > >I'm not so sure that "THE MEANS whereby they are contacted" is >irrelevant. If the "seer" is hypnotised, this method by which >"contact" is made may influence and color the perceptions, and the >content of what is received. The hypnotiser may (unknown to >himself/herself) be telepathically infecting what is received by the >"psychic" or "sensitive". This is just one example from many that could >be presented. > >This whole area is a very complex and complicated subject. Some of >Blavatsky's material has been compiled in DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHIC WORLD >and in the books of Geoffrey Farthing. But reams of material could be >written. For example, on the "seership/mediumship" of Laura Holloway, >Stainton Moses, Anna Kingsford, Suby Ram (Rai Salig Ram), and others. >Geoffrey Barborka has written a volume dealing in part with HPB as a >"tulku" but he only scratches the surface of that particular subject. > >Concerning Paul's references to HPB's "personality" and "negative" (?) >behavior, one must also take into consideration what is said about this >very subject in letters from her Teachers. Also Colonel Olcott and >other persons who knew her well have made a number of valuable >observations extremely relevant to Paul's references. Again even this >particular subject cannot be easily understood or summarized in a few >pages of text. > >Daniel > > >K. Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> Dear Jake, >> >> If I seem to take issue with your statements more than anyone >> else's, please don't take it as a personal thing. Actually I >> have come to like and respect you from seeing you on this list, >> and wish others sharing your belief system were as polite about >> exprerssing their views. >> >> But in light of my knowledge of Cayce, I can't see your >> mediator/medium distinction as having much validity. You say >> that "the mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control >> and possession of their faculties" and make HPB an example of >> this. But we of course cannot know that this was true of her, as >> an awful lot of her behavior seems to me *not* fully self-conscious >> or in full control and possession of her faculties. I mean by >> this the personality traits that brought her into near-constant >> conflict with people around her. Whether this was a by-product >> of spending so much time in the world of "phenomena" is >> debatable. But Cayce clearly did go into a trance state, not >> even retaining memory. Yet as a person, he displayed a lot more >> equilibrium, lightheartedness, sweetness even, than she seems to >> have done, and there is no one on record AFAIK complaining about >> his treatment of people around him. I know that these are not >> the domains you had in mind when making the distinction, but they >> are relevant to me in comparing the two types. You say that the >> "mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or >> Higher Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or >> `black.' The mediator is inspired, while the medium is `taken >> over.'" I can think of no evidence that Cayce was used by >> subhuman or `black' entities, as what he "channeled" was in the >> overwhelming majority of cases the *person who sought the >> reading*. Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or >> negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the >> means whereby they are contacted. >> >> Yes, ideally it is better not to lose self-consciousness in order >> to make contact with other realms and entities. Cayce himself >> says so, and that his need to go into deep trance reflected >> previous lives in which he had squandered his gifts. But you >> cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep >> trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who >> consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is >> channeling something higher and better. >> >> Namaste, >> Paul > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:24:48 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:31:24 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- not a bad idea Message-ID: <00d401bdcd02$44890120$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 21st Dallas offers: It has always seemed to me that the matter of application is left to the student. It is (as always, even from our first days at school or college) a matter of how much we decide we are going to put into the opportunity, and how careful we will marshal such facts or data as are offered to us. We advance in learning, or remain somnolent, as we decide. It has always puzzled me as to how many there are who do not feel challenged by the opportunity of learning that is offered to them every day and at all times. Some may say there is too much detail. then, is not the challenge one of organization ? How do we categorize and condense the information into methods of study and observation, so that we can grasp the "laws of correspondence and analogy" and make use of them ? None of us is so "busy" or so "old" that we cannot make use of these methods of learning. And, there is always reincarnation for the inner, the immortal Ego, and the consideration that nothing we do or learn is ever "lost." As a continuous and coincident rate, is our own thinking (meditation) on the information received. Is it true ? Can we find corroboration ? I, for one, have always assumed that it was my responsibility to find out the accuracy of information given, based on such structure of information and personal thinking that I have received, and/or worked on. I would assume that the reminiscences or records in the exoteric world and history concerning "Mystery Schools," "Occultism," "magic," etc... are to be subjected to the same intense and very personal scrutiny. Why should I, or anyone else ever take anything on "faith," without checking it for reasonableness ? If we assume that Nature already contains everything, both visible and invisible, the doorways to the "esoteric," or the "occult" lie all around and within us. Then, what is it in us that seeks, that wants to know ? Is it not the mind, urged thereto by some form of "desire?" What is the nature of our inner propelling desire ? what is our true motive ? But I do not think that these things can be answered or broadcast, and must truly always remain "esoteric" to us and us alone. We can speak of our experiences, and offer such shortcuts as we have found that work for us, but it is always to those who read or listen to what we offer to accept, use or reject. Throughout HPB's writings we are given evidence by her of the existence of the College of the Adepts, the Mahatmas. It is a College of Immortals and the truly Wise. Is this so impossible? Are we rally so credulous as not to have investigated such a claim in search of its foundation in any ? We are given proofs of their records in all departments of inquiry and experience -- can we not take the S D and ISIS, or her many articles as evidence of this type of eclectic wisdom for which there are no longer the barriers that seem to encompass our inquiries ? Are we not given clues again and again to our own natures, qualities, capacities and talents (either actual or those that we can develop if we desire to do that ) and to the methods we can use to delve into the secrets and mysteries of Nature and her ways ? HPB speaks again and again of a regular system of manifestation and evolution. she speaks of three lines that are interblended at all points: SPIRITUAL (or Monadic.). INTELLECTUAL (or thought and mind), and PHYSICAL or the refinement and evocation from Matter, of its inherent capacities. She speaks of Man being the microcosm of the Macrocosm, and indicates that all the powers and forces of Nature are present in each of us in germ. WE all take a certain pride in discovery ? why should we if the facts and secrets of Nature have been all around us all the time ? It is rather : How slow are we to discover them ! Theosophy puts forward a most important but usually missed link in the acquisition of wisdom. It is, to my mind, the link of application. If we get knowledge how do we use it ? This is the moral ( I think I ought to use the word "ethical" ) factor. I think, since it is one that affects us very personally that it must be the real key to occultism and esotericism. It is the key that opens our personality to our view (as mind-beings) without any veil as to our real motives. Here is, to my way of thinking, the real arena of battle and conflict. We have to confront our "Lower Selves," the animal-man. Such an appellation may not please many. But, is it not really so ? Which is the superior faculty ? Desire and wants or the keen seeing and deeply investigating power of the MIND ? Which is more constant ? The feelings and passions, or our MINDS ? What is that which ought to be our real aim and purpose in life ? All these questions are to be answered by each one for and to themselves. As is such a discipline not a primary part of the path to true Occultism ? Do we not find HPB at many points in her books and articles saying these same points in her own words ? What is so difficult to accept and use for investigation ? Are we afraid to find on close investigation that our motives are faulty and not wide or generous enough as to prove to be invariably of good-will to others ? HPB tells us that the secrets of Nature can only be revealed to those who are benevolent. Hence the first Object of the T S is Universal Brotherhood ? Thse are some of the ideas that this line of inquiry has raisd for me. I hope thy can prove tobe useful. Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 8:58 AM > From: "Brant Jackson" > Subject: Re: TS as a mystery school?? -- not a bad idea >Dallas: > You set forth at very detailed list of concepts taught in modern Theosophy >which it offers to the public in plain language for the first time. I agree >that we have gotten much more detail from the S.D. and other Theosophical >works than from the "fragments of an ancient faith", but that is the nature of >secret organizations. > I personally like Barborka's The Divine Plan, a study guide to the S.D., for >the way its organizes and presents these doctrines, starting with the >fundamental propositions, in a gradual and sequential pattern. Given the fact >that the church no longer has the power to burn us at the stake for heresy, >public disclosure is now both possible and necessary. > But I happen to think that Theosophy must be more than study and memorization >of facts. It must be more than a mere body of esoteric knowledge. There is >too much in its literature that stresses that personal self-transformation >through a process of union, [the Path?] is necessary to really understand >[through experience?] the occult truths contained in the S.D. IMHO, the >mystery schools probably taught the process necessary to understand the >knowledge, always a subjective process depending on the development of the >seeker, as well as the knowledge itself. Are we doing this today? > > Brant Jackson [BJack5259@aol.com] > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 08:58:28 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:52:23 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: fractals Message-ID: <55ca9953.35dd7b98@aol.com> PBS ran an hour program on Fractals several months back. It was utterly fascinating. They enter a formula into a computer and it goes off into infinity creating forms, many which closely resemble aspects of nature, trees for instance. It seems like it might be a key formula in nature's designs. - Jake J. From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 09:11:20 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:08:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Composition vs. handwriting Message-Id: <199808211408.KAA07911@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> In-Reply-To: <199808211321.IAA10085@proteus.imagiware.com> from "owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com" at Aug 21, 98 08:21:40 am I know Theosophists believe that Vernon Harrison has "vindicated" HPB, but he recoiled from that word when I asked him about it, and said not at all-- he had simply demonstrated that Hodgson's case against her was unproven. I find the question of handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly not send them in my own handwriting. And HPB was shrewder than I. The real question is not who physically wrote the versions Sinnett received, but who composed the contents. And Marion Meade makes these telling (if not always entirely fair) observations about K.H.'s letters: He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his French impeccable, his English queer. He also has a habit of overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or French. Although his letters are written in English, it is not the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar. For example, he inserted commas between subject and predicate. Worse yet, K.H. is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his thoughts into English...[examples] K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and philosophy. He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels. "My knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists, which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison, Tyndall, and some thirty others. In personality, he was alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic, petty, and downright bitchy. But he was always entertaining. p. 236, Mme. Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 09:54:51 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:51:42 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: More Giants Message-ID: Along with the last post on Giants, R. Robb sent my newsletter the following piece on Giants: "On Admirable Things; and Those that have lived to a Great Age," by Phlegon Trallianus: "Not many years since, in Messene, Apollonius (grammarian) says, that a large stone vessel was broke through violent tempests, and a great inundation of water, and that a head was washed out of it, three times as large as that of a man, with two rows of teeth. An inscription informed those that were endeavoring to find whose head it was, that it was the head of Idas: for this was the inscription, ...... OF IDAS. (see Homer, Illiad, 9, v. 554) "In Dlmatia, too, in that which is called the cavern of Diana, many bodies may be seen, whose ribs exceed sixteen cubits.* (*A cubit was an ancient measurement of approximately 18 - 22 inches.) But the grammarian Apollonius relates that there was an earthquake during the reign of Tiberius Nero, through which many celebrated cities of Asia were entirely destroyed.... Not a few too, of the cities of Sicily suffered through this earthquake, and places near Rhegium, together with several cities in Pontus. But in those parts in which the earth was rent asunder, very large dead bodies were found.... they sent to Rome one of the teeth of these bodies; and it was more than a foot long. Nor ought we to refuse to assent to this narration, since there is a place in Egypt called Litrae, in which bodies are to be seen not less in size than the above mentioned, and these not buried in the earth, but exposed to the view, neither confused nor disturbed, but placed in proper order, so that he who looks at them can tell which are the bones of the thighs, legs, and other members. I am likewise informed, that at Rhodes there are bones which far surpass in magnitude the bones of men of the present day. And the same Apollonius says, that there is a certain island near Athens, which the Athenians fortified with walls; and that when they were digging the foundations of these walls, they found a sepulchre of one hundred cubits in length, in which there was a skeleton of the same dimensions with the sepulchre, with this inscription: I, MACROSEIRIS, WHO LIVED FIVE THOUSAND YEARS, AM BURIED IN LONG ISLAND. "Eumachus, in his discription of the earth, says that the Carthaginians, when they were digging a trench in their own country, found two skeletons placed in coffins, one of which was twenty-three, and the other twenty-four cubits. And Theopompus Sinnopensis, in his "Treatise on Earthquakes," says, that a sudden earthquake happening in the Cimerian Bosphorus, a certain hill was rent asunder, and the bones of a prodigious magnitude were thrown out of it; for the length of the whole skeleton was found to be twenty-four cubits. He adds, that the Barbarians who dwelt about those parts threw these bones into lake Maeotis." (Vol. III, p. 240-42) Reference: British Museum Catalog shows: Phlegon, of Tralles. De Mirabilibus et longaevus libellus. Eiusdem de Olympijs fragmentum. (Gr. & Lat.) See: Antonius Liberalis. Transformationum Congeries, etc. (Gr. & Lat.) 1568. (no place or publisher shown) ==================== - Jake J. From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 14:09:54 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:03:47 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Mahatma on TS & HPB Message-Id: <199808211903.AA24400@lafn.org> The following is from a letter lately received from an Indian brother...[B.K. Lahiri] and is recommended to your attention as independent evidence of the position of H.P.B. and the connection of the Masters with the T.S. Annie Besant, William Q. Judge March, 1893. THE LETTER K.B., a Brahman Yogi, recently went up to the Himalayas: on his way down to Deccan, he was kind enough to stop at my place for some days... I must mention here also that this gentleman did not know much of H.P.B. before nor of the Theosophical Society, and whenever I spoke to him about them he used to say, as it were passively, that it was a good work, no doubt, and that H.P.B. must have known the occult philosophy... that whenever the Rakshasas [demons] became powerful some goddess is sent to destroy them, and so she was sent to destroy the materialism of the all-powerful western Rakshasas. However, now I shall relate what he told me when he came back from the Himalayas. The first thing he said was: "Go on! go on! go on! Fit yourself; you have much to do: go on, go on, and go on." The next thing he told me was, that this time he considered himself thrice blessed by the sight of a Mahatma... in the snow- covered and impassable cave of the Himalayas... The Mahatma, he said, he saw perfectly naked; that no living soul could venture to look at his eyes; his color appeared to be of such a peculiar hue that it is not like anything worldly, but when he touched his hand (K.B.'s) between the third and fourth fingers, the latter could not stand the electric shock that ran up to his head from the extreme parts of his feet... He became almost unconscious, although he himself is a real yogi of 22 years' standing... He said the body of the Mahatma, though it looked like butter, proved to be hard as steel, and that it was impossible for him to say of what it is made. The Mahatma does not speak, and with him only spoke where he could not make the latter understand his thought perfectly well. After he received his instruction, whatever was necessary for him, he asked: "that in India there they have established a society called the Theosophical Society, and that Madame Blavatsky started it with Col. Olcott. What is this? Is there anything real in it? Who was H.P.B.? Was she a yogi? Is Col. Olcott a yogi? What will be end of all this? Is anybody to come in the place of H.P.B.? My certain friend B.K.L. who takes much interest in the T.S. pressed me for the latter information." ...He said, "The T.S. was their work: it was established to change the present current of the human mind and destroy Nastikism, [materialistic atheism]... that he was present when H.P.B. was sent by her Master from the Manasarovara Hills in Tibet... she was sent to carry out the work of the Mahatmas; -- that she was very high up there is not the least doubt, that he himself was one of the Circle, although not so high as the Guru of H.P.B.; that Col. Olcott is a good man no doubt but no yogi, he is entirely different from H.P.B. with whose name you cannot mention Olcott. That what was necessary was done by H.P.B. and the Society is successful... that hitherto the T.S. followed a particular line, but in India there should be a change in that line, but there will be no change in the West, they must go on as they do now." Since the Svamiji has come back from the Himalayan Hills his ideas about the T.S. and H.P.B. are entirely different; instead of passive tolerance he simply says: "...Oh! I like to worship the portrait of H.P.B.; no one has done so much good for humanity, especially for India, after Buddha and Shankaracharya... The T.S. is ours, established for certain purposes by our Mahatmas; go on and go on, work and work." ...I must tell you that the Svamji never knew any of these informations about the T.S., the West, or H.P.B. before he went up to the Hills. The Svamji showed me his hand where the Mahatma held it with his two fingers -- there is the white sign of inflammation still existing, and subsequently the skin was off from that place. These are the facts that are revealed to me... It appeared also that the Svamji is the chela of one of the chelas or grand chelas of a Mahatma of the Circle. ********************************************* [Slightly abridged by NW. From ~Echoes of the Orient~ vol. III, 431-32.] -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 14:24:47 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:22:52 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Composition vs. handwriting Message-ID: <35DDC90C.4CA5@azstarnet.com> References: <199808211408.KAA07911@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > I know Theosophists believe that Vernon Harrison has "vindicated" > HPB, but he recoiled from that word when I asked him about it, > and said not at all-- he had simply demonstrated that Hodgson's > case against her was unproven. I find the question of > handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were > going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and > knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly > not send them in my own handwriting. And HPB was shrewder than > I. The real question is not who physically wrote the versions > Sinnett received, but who composed the contents. And Marion > Meade makes these telling (if not always entirely fair) > observations about K.H.'s letters: > > He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or > Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his > French impeccable, his English queer. He also has a habit of > overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or > French. Although his letters are written in English, it is not > the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in > the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar. For example, he > inserted commas between subject and predicate. Worse yet, K.H. > is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions > lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his > thoughts into English...[examples] > > K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and > philosophy. He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift > incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson > and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels. "My > knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists, > which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison, > Tyndall, and some thirty others. In personality, he was > alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic, > petty, and downright bitchy. But he was always entertaining. > > p. 236, Mme. Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth Daniel Caldwell replies: Concerning Paul Johnson's latest comments on the Mahatma Letters, much could be said on the subject. I will simply start by making one observation that everything Paul writes is very vague and in very general terms. Details are what really counts in these issues. Pages could be written analyzing what Marion Meade writes and determining whether what she asserts is true, false, inaccurate, whatever. Although Meade's biography of HPB is very well written, the bio is full of errors. A HUGE list of mistakes could be given documenting that she did not always do her homework, etc. Just as I've published articles showing examples of Jean Overton Fuller's and K. Paul Johnson's sloppy research, I could do one also on Ms. Meade's bio. Here is just one GLARING mistake of many that could be cited: Marion Meade in her biography p. 497 writes "In all, about nine or ten persons testified to having seen the Mahatmas: Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar Mavalankar, Isabel Cooper-Oakley, William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S.R. Ramaswamier, Justine Glinka and Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he never actually saw them, he felt their presence." I remember reading this statement by Meade some fifteen years ago and exclaiming to myself, "Oh Marion Meade, you haven't done your homework!" Off the top of my head, I could count at least twenty-five people who testified to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. And despite Meade's statement to the contrary, Hartmann had testified that he had actually seen one of the Mahatmas. Apparently Meade had never carefully read two of the titles listed in her own bibliography: Geoffrey Barborka's The Mahatmas And Their Letters (1973) and Franz Hartmann's Report Of Observations, etc. (1884); both titles prove Meade didn't know what she was writing about concerning Hartmann. So the question I raise is: Has Johnson researched and verified what Marion Meade says about the Mahatma Letters or has he just accepted without investigation her chacracterization? Now let us leave Meade's bio and turn our attention to some of the latest of Paul Johnson's comments: >I find the question of > handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were > going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and > knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly > not send them in my own handwriting. And HPB was shrewder than > I. The real question is not who physically wrote the versions > Sinnett received, but who composed the contents. I find Paul's statement concerning "the question of handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting" somewhat amusing. For more than 100 years most skeptics of Blavatsky have used Hodgson's charge that Blavatsky physically wrote most of the Mahatma Letters to paint her as a charlatan and declare that the Mahatmas were non-existent. Now Paul comes along and finds this aspect of the case "rather irrelevant and uninteresting"? Maybe this issue is psychologically "uninteresting" to Paul so we won't pursue this aspect. But I contend that the question of handwriting is not "irrelevant". Both Dr. Harrison and Dr. Paul Kirk are of the professional opinion that Blavatsky did not write the KH letters. Then who did? Now let us get very specific and consider various historical incidents related to the Mahatma Letters. I could bring up dozens of examples but will cite just one or two for those who are interested in *thinking through the subject* rather than just naively accepting or rejecting what Marion Meade and Paul Johnson assert about this subject. In October 1880 when Blavatsky, Olcott and their servant Babula was visiting Simla in northern India, the first Mahatma Letters were received (in Simla) by A.P. Sinnett. Look at Mahatma Letters 1, 2, 3a, 3b and 3c. Who wrote these letters? If one is inclined to think Madame Blavatsky somehow palmed these letters off on Sinnett, then who in the hell physically wrote them? If it wasn't Blavatsky (as Johnson is currently contending) then was it Olcott or Babula? Or does Johnson believe that there was some other unknown confederate lurking in the Simla bushes? Who paid this confederate's salary? And did this unknown confederate continue to write the letters over the next 4 and 1/2 years? More specifically, on October 20, 1880, the "Pillow Incident" occurred in which Letter 3b and a brooch of Mrs. Sinnett's appeared in Mrs. Sinnett's jampan pillow. No skeptic has ever convincingly explained how this trick was pulled off, if indeed it was but a trick. Yet we have this Letter 3b. I have a photocopy of it right before my eyes. Who composed the words? And who physically wrote each and every word in Letter 3b? If Paul Johnson believes Blavatsky composed the words, who physically inscribed the words on the notepaper? This is in the KH handwriting. And how on earth did the letter get inside this pillow? This pillow, according to A.P. Sinnett, was in the drawing room the whole morning before the picnic. One must read very carefully Sinnett's account to understand all the details surrounding this one letter (3b). See Sinnett's Occult World or my compilation THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY, pp. 134-138. The note found in the pillow reads: "My "Dear Brother," This brooch No. 2 -- is placed in this very strange place simply to show to you how very easily a real phenomenon is produced and how still easier it is to suspect its genuineness. Make of it what you like even to classing me with confederates. The difficulty you spoke of last night with respect to the interchange of our letters I will try to remove. One of our pupils will shortly visit Lahore and the N.W.P. and an address will be sent to you which you can always use; unless, indeed, you really would prefer corresponding through -- pillows. Please to remark that the present is not dated from a "Lodge" but from a Kashmir valley. Yours, more than ever, Koot' Hoomi Lal Sing." Sinnet in his narrative writes: "On the hypothesis. . . that the cushion [pillow] must have been got at by Madame Blavatsky, it must have been got at since I spoke of my impressions that morning, shortly after breakfast. . . . [and no later than the time of the picnic when the note and brooch were found in the pillow." So for the skeptic who can't believe in psychic precipatation, etc, some person had to physically write this note, somehow physically insert it into the pillow (See Sinnett's narrative) and do all this BEFORE they went on the picnic. This would have to have been done in Sinnett's house. Please note that the writer of this letter had to know that Mrs. Sinnett's jampan pillow cushion would LATER be selected as the place where the letter would be deposited (read the text of 3b). Even Olcott in his handwritten diary account (which has never been published) was amazed by this performance. So if Madame Blavatsky did not physically write the letter (as Johnson prefers to believe today) then that narrows down the number of options. That narrows it down to Olcott and Babula if we are looking for physical "confederates". Unless Johnson and other skeptics want to hypothesize some other totally unknown person slipping in and out of Sinnett's house, etc. But I have never heard from any skeptic (and I have known a good number) a reasonable explanation of how this letter got into the pillow by PHYSICAL means. Yes, you can ignore the testimony of Sinnett (there are at least two accounts by him) and Olcott (there are 2 accounts by him including the unpublished diary account). But if you adopt this ploy here, then you can do so similarly with ANY account relating to ANYTHING in Madame Blavatsky's life. Why consider evidence if you always push it aside when it conflicts with your background assumptions and beliefs? ONE MORE BRIEF EXAMPLE: In March 1882 Madame Blavatsky was in Bombay. Sinnett was in Allahabad. And Olcott was at a town located between Allahabad and Calcutta. Please look at a map of India and the distances involved. One morning Olcott got up and found on the table a letter from KH to Sinnett. Olcott was instructed to send it on to Sinnett. This has never been cited before. It is to be found in Olcott's unpublished handwritten diary. No writer including Olcott himself has ever published anything about the receipt of this particular Mahatma Letter. I have identified which Mahatma Letter was involved in this incident. Now who physically wrote this letter? And who placed it on Olcott's table? Blavatsky was literally on the other side of India at the time. And Olcott was travelling alone. Let the wiggling and explaining away begin! {This is a rough draft.} From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 16:51:55 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:57:21 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: fractals Message-ID: <003a01bdcd4d$00ac2720$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 21st Jake: Any chance of getting to download one of those formulas for fractals ? Do you know where such could be accessed ? I have seen a video-tape but wondered if this could be made available to us. Dal > Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:06 AM > From: "Jake Jaqua" > Subject: fractals > PBS ran an hour program on Fractals several months back. It was utterly >fascinating. They enter a formula into a computer and it goes off into >infinity creating forms, many which closely resemble aspects of nature, trees >for instance. >It seems like it might be a key formula in nature's designs. > - Jake J. > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 17:51:49 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:49:25 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: Composition vs. handwriting TESTIMONY AS TO MAHATMAS Message-ID: <004201bdcd56$0942dba0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug. 21st 1998 Friends Nicholas Weeks and Daniel Caldwell have advanced information as to the existence of the Mahatmas. Adding to Daniel Caldwell's comments, if one goes to volumes 9 and 10 of THE PATH we will find that Mr. Judge published a small series of articles under the title : TESTIMONY AS TO MAHATMAS Each one who gives testimony there, speaks for himself and the references are: PATH Vol. 9, pp. 385, 424; PATH Vol. 10, pp. 44, 127 A total of 23 individuals testify here. The protection afforded to Prince Wittgenstein during the Crimean war by the Mahatmas is alluded to in THEOSOPHIST Vol. 4, pp 141-2; THST Vol. 5, pp 98-9. Col.. Olcott writes extensively of his own experiences in OLD DIARY LEAVES. Also there is an interesting reference in THEOSOPHIST, Vol. 6, p. 4 When in 1882, Mr. Hume wrote in derogation of the Mahatmas a number of chelas wrote a protest. This was published in the Supplement to the THEOSOPHIST for October 1882 (Vol. 4). Their signatures record those who knew of the Mahatmas. Another interesting reference will be found in THEOSOPHIST Vol. 4, pp 154, and on pp. 157-8. What else can be adduced ? In Vol. 8 of the PATH, p. 1, is reproduced a copy of a document signed by two of the Masters who there say they co-authored the SECRET DOCTRINE with HPB. This was given to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden and he in turn gave Mr. Judge a copy. We have THE MAHATMA LETTERS, as well as Letters or Notes from them published in other places. Taken as a whole there is a consistency and a coherence that would imply a knowledge and an antiquity to Theosophical lore and study that is staggering in itself. A whole segment of information relating to the forces that operate from inside matter and cause it to act is revealed. It is interesting that after 100 years much of what was said in the S D is being researched and demonstrated by Science and Religious research in source documents. In addition there are two series of Mahatma Letters reprinted under the editorship of Mr. Jinarajadasa [ TPH, Adyar ] under the title LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM. Among those will be found repeated to Col. Olcott the statement that the S D is authored by Them in collaboration with HPB. What kind of a list can we then produce? Testimony : >From HPB, Col. Olcott, W Q Judge, Sinnett, W. T. Brown, Hartmann, Hume, Prem Nath, Leadbeater, Mohini M. Chatterjee, Harisinghji Rupsinghji Maharaja of Bhawnagar, Damodar K. Mavlankar, S. Ramaswammiar, R. Keshava Pillai, Dr. Hubbe Schleiden, B. K. Lahiri, Bhagavan Das Rao, -- and many others at that time and since. But while this may be of interest to students of Theosophy, this does not silence any of the skeptics. I mean that want a "show me." And do not wish to do their own studying. Perhaps the only consolation students will have to fall back on is the fact that Theosophy proves itself by its eclecticism and depth. There is no where extant today any system that covers all areas of knowledge or present a coherent philosophy of evolution such as it does. Each one has to prove this for themselves. There is no substitute for a familiarity with what HPB wrote and the Mahatmas taught and teach. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 12:36 PM > From: "Daniel H Caldwell" > Subject: Re: Composition vs. handwriting >K. Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> I know Theosophists believe that Vernon Harrison has "vindicated" >> HPB, but he recoiled from that word when I asked him about it, >> and said not at all-- he had simply demonstrated that Hodgson's >> case against her was unproven. I find the question of >> handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were >> going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and >> knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly >> not send them in my own handwriting. And HPB was shrewder than >> I. The real question is not who physically wrote the versions >> Sinnett received, but who composed the contents. And Marion >> Meade makes these telling (if not always entirely fair) >> observations about K.H.'s letters: >> >> He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or >> Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his >> French impeccable, his English queer. He also has a habit of >> overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or >> French. Although his letters are written in English, it is not >> the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in >> the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar. For example, he >> inserted commas between subject and predicate. Worse yet, K.H. >> is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions >> lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his >> thoughts into English...[examples] >> >> K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and >> philosophy. He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift >> incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson >> and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels. "My >> knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists, >> which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison, >> Tyndall, and some thirty others. In personality, he was >> alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic, >> petty, and downright bitchy. But he was always entertaining. >> >> p. 236, Mme. Blavatsky: The Woman Behind the Myth > >Daniel Caldwell replies: > >Concerning Paul Johnson's latest comments on the Mahatma Letters, much >could be said on the subject. > >I will simply start by making one observation that everything Paul >writes is very vague and in very general terms. Details are what really >counts in these issues. Pages could be written analyzing what Marion >Meade writes and determining whether what she asserts is true, false, >inaccurate, whatever. Although Meade's biography of HPB is very well >written, the bio is full of errors. A HUGE list of mistakes could be >given documenting that she did not always do her homework, etc. Just as >I've published articles showing examples of Jean Overton Fuller's and K. >Paul Johnson's sloppy research, I could do one also on Ms. Meade's bio. >Here is just one GLARING mistake of many that could be cited: > >Marion Meade in her biography p. 497 writes > >"In all, about nine or ten persons testified to having seen the >Mahatmas: Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar Mavalankar, Isabel >Cooper-Oakley, William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S.R. Ramaswamier, >Justine Glinka and Vsevolod Solovyov. Franz Hartmann said that while he >never actually saw them, he felt their presence." > >I remember reading this statement by Meade some fifteen years ago and >exclaiming to myself, "Oh Marion Meade, you haven't done your homework!" >Off the top of my head, I could count at least twenty-five people who >testified to having seen the Mahatmas during H.P.B.'s lifetime. And >despite Meade's statement to the contrary, Hartmann had testified that >he had actually seen one of the Mahatmas. Apparently Meade had never >carefully read two of the titles listed in her own bibliography: >Geoffrey Barborka's The Mahatmas And Their Letters (1973) and Franz >Hartmann's Report Of Observations, etc. (1884); both titles prove Meade >didn't know what she was writing about concerning Hartmann. > >So the question I raise is: > >Has Johnson researched and verified what Marion Meade says about the >Mahatma Letters or has he just accepted without investigation her >chacracterization? > >Now let us leave Meade's bio and turn our attention to some of the >latest of Paul Johnson's comments: > >>I find the question of >> handwriting rather irrelevant and uninteresting, since if I were >> going to compose letters and attribute them to someone else, and >> knew that people would suspect me of authorship, I'd certainly >> not send them in my own handwriting. And HPB was shrewder than >> I. The real question is not who physically wrote the versions >> Sinnett received, but who composed the contents. > >I find Paul's statement concerning "the question of handwriting rather >irrelevant and uninteresting" somewhat amusing. For more than 100 years >most skeptics of Blavatsky have used Hodgson's charge that Blavatsky >physically wrote most of the Mahatma Letters to paint her as a charlatan >and declare that the Mahatmas were non-existent. Now Paul comes along >and finds this aspect of the case "rather irrelevant and uninteresting"? >Maybe this issue is psychologically "uninteresting" to Paul so we won't >pursue this aspect. But I contend that the question of handwriting is >not "irrelevant". Both Dr. Harrison and Dr. Paul Kirk are of the >professional opinion that Blavatsky did not write the KH letters. Then >who did? > >Now let us get very specific and consider various historical incidents >related to the Mahatma Letters. I could bring up dozens of examples but >will cite just one or two for those who are interested in *thinking >through the subject* rather than just naively accepting or rejecting >what Marion Meade and Paul Johnson assert about this subject. > >In October 1880 when Blavatsky, Olcott and their servant Babula was >visiting Simla in northern India, the first Mahatma Letters were >received (in Simla) by A.P. Sinnett. Look at Mahatma Letters 1, 2, 3a, >3b and 3c. Who wrote these letters? If one is inclined to think Madame >Blavatsky somehow palmed these letters off on Sinnett, then who in the >hell physically wrote them? If it wasn't Blavatsky (as Johnson is >currently contending) then was it Olcott or Babula? Or does Johnson >believe that there was some other unknown confederate lurking in the >Simla bushes? Who paid this confederate's salary? And did this unknown >confederate continue to write the letters over the next 4 and 1/2 >years? >More specifically, on October 20, 1880, the "Pillow Incident" occurred >in which Letter 3b and a brooch of Mrs. Sinnett's appeared in Mrs. >Sinnett's jampan pillow. No skeptic has ever convincingly explained how >this trick was pulled off, if indeed it was but a trick. Yet we have >this Letter 3b. I have a photocopy of it right before my eyes. Who >composed the words? And who physically wrote each and every word in >Letter 3b? If Paul Johnson believes Blavatsky composed the words, who >physically inscribed the words on the notepaper? This is in the KH >handwriting. And how on earth did the letter get inside this pillow? >This pillow, according to A.P. Sinnett, was in the drawing room the >whole morning before the picnic. One must read very carefully Sinnett's >account to understand all the details surrounding this one letter (3b). >See Sinnett's Occult World or my compilation THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME >BLAVATSKY, pp. 134-138. > >The note found in the pillow reads: > >"My "Dear Brother," > >This brooch No. 2 -- is placed in this very strange place simply to show >to you how very easily a real phenomenon is >produced and how still easier it is to suspect its genuineness. Make of >it what you like even to classing me with confederates. > >The difficulty you spoke of last night with respect to the interchange >of our letters I will try to remove. One of our pupils will >shortly visit Lahore and the N.W.P. and an address will be sent to you >which you can always use; unless, indeed, you really >would prefer corresponding through -- pillows. Please to remark that the >present is not dated from a "Lodge" but from a >Kashmir valley. > >Yours, more than ever, > >Koot' Hoomi Lal Sing." > >Sinnet in his narrative writes: > >"On the hypothesis. . . that the cushion [pillow] must have been got at >by Madame Blavatsky, it must have been got at since I spoke of my >impressions that morning, shortly after breakfast. . . . [and no later >than the time of the picnic when the note and brooch were found in the >pillow." > >So for the skeptic who can't believe in psychic precipatation, etc, some >person had to physically write this note, somehow physically insert it >into the pillow (See Sinnett's narrative) and do all this BEFORE they >went on the picnic. This would have to have been done in Sinnett's >house. Please note that the writer of this letter had to know that Mrs. >Sinnett's jampan pillow cushion would LATER be selected as the place >where the letter would be deposited (read the text of 3b). Even Olcott >in his handwritten diary account (which has never been published) was >amazed by this performance. > >So if Madame Blavatsky did not physically write the letter (as Johnson >prefers to believe today) then that narrows down the number of options. >That narrows it down to Olcott and Babula if we are looking for physical >"confederates". Unless Johnson and other skeptics want to hypothesize >some other totally unknown person slipping in and out of Sinnett's >house, etc. But I have never heard from any skeptic (and I have known a >good number) a reasonable explanation of how this letter got into the >pillow by PHYSICAL means. Yes, you can ignore the testimony of Sinnett >(there are at least two accounts by him) and Olcott (there are 2 >accounts by him including the unpublished diary account). But if you >adopt this ploy here, then you can do so similarly with ANY account >relating to ANYTHING in Madame Blavatsky's life. Why consider evidence >if you always push it aside when it conflicts with your background >assumptions and beliefs? > >ONE MORE BRIEF EXAMPLE: In March 1882 Madame Blavatsky was in Bombay. >Sinnett was in Allahabad. And Olcott was at a town located between >Allahabad and Calcutta. Please look at a map of India and the distances >involved. One morning Olcott got up and found on the table a letter >from KH to Sinnett. Olcott was instructed to send it on to >Sinnett. This has never been cited before. It is to be found in >Olcott's unpublished handwritten diary. No writer including Olcott >himself has ever published anything about the receipt of this particular >Mahatma Letter. I have identified which Mahatma Letter was involved in >this incident. Now who physically wrote this letter? And who placed it >on Olcott's table? Blavatsky was literally on the other side of India >at the time. And Olcott was travelling alone. > >Let the wiggling and explaining away begin! > >{This is a rough draft.} > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 19:51:47 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:54:17 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Are you or aren't you? Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980821185417.007aa350@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808212251.RAA03801@proteus.imagiware.com> Paul offered a snippet of Marion Meade's writings: >He does not, however, speak or write German, Punjabi, Hindi or >Tibetan; his Latin is faulty, his Sanskrit non-existent, his >French impeccable, his English queer. He also has a habit of >overlining his m's, a mannerism of Russians writing in English or >French. Although his letters are written in English, it is not >the English of an educated Indian and they sometimes falter in >the use of punctuation, spelling, and grammar. For example, he >inserted commas between subject and predicate. Worse yet, K.H. >is fond of American slang and his awkward sentence constructions >lead one to believe he is thinking in French but translating his >thoughts into English...[examples] > >K.H. is in semi-command of Western literature, science, and >philosophy. He quotes Shakespeare correctly, and Swift >incorrectly, has a passing acquaintance with Thackeray, Tennyson >and Dickens, and keeps au courant by reading English novels. "My >knowledge of your Western science is *very* limited," he insists, >which does not prevent him from aiming barbs at Darwin, Edison, >Tyndall, and some thirty others. In personality, he was >alternately witty, stern, cheerful, spiteful, highly idealistic, >petty, and downright bitchy. But he was always entertaining. I've never read Meade's book but the passage Paul cites here is very intriguing. It asks the important question: WHY would a "Master" be so contradictory, so full of human emotions, pursuits, and errors? I often wondered while reading THE MAHATMA LETTERS why, at times, the "Masters" could be so downright crabby, snappy, and snippy. And WHY would a "Master" be interested in novels - granted, some of them are pretty spicy, but?? And WHY would a "Master" be admittedly ignorant when it comes to Western Science, but yet still believe that "he" is in a position to peg the faults of Western Science? Whether or not Meade has numerical errors (re: Daniel's questioning of the number of people who claimed to see the "Masters) in her book does not negate the importance of the questions/observations she brings to light regarding a "Masters" inconsistency. Meade appears here to be addressing the very "character" of a "Master" - something that is very worthy of up-close eyeballing. As far as the pillow incident Daniel brought up - whether or not one has a copy of the letter does not prove in any way that the actual "pillow event" ever even occurred. It is possible to have even the 'original' letter while it still remaining possible that the "pillow event" was simply constructed by a group of people who desperately desired, in some way, to add credibility to their message (Theosophy). Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 20:51:46 1998 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:01:58 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Missing Principles: The myth of the 7 Message-ID: <35DD99F6.D7E2436F@sprynet.com> References: <00d701bdcd02$489fc1e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > The reference to a "missing" principle in the case of HPB is to be found in > MAHATMA LETTERS. p. 203, bottom -- for two reasons: 1 -- communications, > and 2 - preservation of secrecy. > > > Jake J.writes: > > > >>Blavatsky supposedly had a "missing principle" or sub-principle (to insure > she > >>wouldn't reveal certain things esoterically she knew under the pressures > of > >>being in the worldly-world), and this is held to be the occult explanation > for > >>her erratic temperament. Note that, from a set of three, there are 8 ways that they can be expressed (none of the above, or the "null set" must be included). If you ignore the null, then you have seven left. Now consider the phrase, "Naught was" in the first of the verses of Dzyan, and consider it as a positive rather than negative statement; it is my belief that the clue to the missing principle lies in there. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 21:06:47 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:42:52 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: fractals Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980822114252.007da750@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <55ca9953.35dd7b98@aol.com> I beleive you may be referring to the 'The Colours of Infinity' - hosted by Arthur C. Clarke with interviews withe Terrence McKenna and Benoir Mandelbrot amongst others. To Dallas, Do you know how to search warez or FTP sites? You should do a search for Fractal Painter or just use the word 'fractal' and I'm sure there will be many programs available for download. If you are having troubles I can email you something direct but may be around 2mb even zipped Regards Darren aka NOS At 09:52 AM 8/21/98 EDT, you wrote: > PBS ran an hour program on Fractals several months back. It was utterly >fascinating. They enter a formula into a computer and it goes off into >infinity creating forms, many which closely resemble aspects of nature, trees >for instance. >It seems like it might be a key formula in nature's designs. > - Jake J. > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 21:13:25 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:41:50 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980822114150.007dd190@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <003801bdc71e$7866ef00$217d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jerry & I saith thus: >>NOS replies: >>I sid ONE TRUE INITIATION. There are many 'spiritual experiences' which the >>naive think are initiations - and yes one need not die to have a spiritual >>experience - but what of it? >> > >Guess I'm pretty naive then. Only in that you don't have the experiential reference point to make a judgement over the differences in 'initiations' . Most people that have found their way to theosophy invariably have had some momentus life experience such as an NDE that helps them understand the basic principal of unity. If your here then you probably KNOW that this is true. But how do we explain to common everyday garden variety materialist that is more to this world than little balls bouncing together? >>Unless you have died and I don't mean an NDE which is just another form of >>hallucination (albeit very inisghtful into the true nature of reality) and >>STOPPED COMPLETELY (laya state) - that is - all forms of change through >>thought - you will still be embedded in MAYA. All thoughtis Mayavic, all >>concepts are mayavic. >> > >Guess what. Even after death we are still in Maya. Thoughts are alive >and well on the mental plane, which is where Devachan lies. Yes - but liberation is found most easily in the after-death state according to the Bardo Thodrol. If time didn't pass by itself we would have to 'push it' - mentally through thought. We can stop thinking - the goal of meditation - but unless outside stimulus is removed the 'stopped moment' may hard to find. >>For those interested in performing self-initiations I suggest reading the >>Rg Veda very thoroughly first and to understand what is meant by Vriti in >>Chetna (forgive my spelling if slightly out I have 3 books with different >>nomenclature). Then acquire some true SOMA. Do not attempt it by yourself >>though. >> > >Self-initiations do not require a Rg Veda or any other book. I have >had many myself, but then I am very naive so they probably don't count >for much. Jerry your humility is very becoming. But trust me you will know the difference between an epiphany (with moving thought or expereince) and union with the laya state. The question is - what disturbance in pure consciousness causes the mental spiral into thought-form - cosmic desire? > >>But ask yourself, once I know everything and Understand completely (gnosis) >>what do I wnat then? >> > > >Then you will want to share it with others. I'm trying but it's hard. Darren From ???@??? Fri Aug 21 21:21:46 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:48:03 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: The face of God? Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980822114803.007de400@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980820135422.007a4440@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808191400.JAA20425@proteus.imagiware.com> from Misis Unveiled p213 "The two eared symbol shall become reknown throughout the land of MAMMON. And the creator shall lay frozen awaiting the time of rebirth while the priests chant the holy mantra - M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E-MICKEY MOUSE MICKEY MOUSE.... At 01:54 PM 8/20/98 -0600, you wrote: >NOS wrote: > >>The most amazing thing about fractal equations is that they have INFINITE >>detail. if you construct a fractal on a PC you can zoom ad infinitum >>revealing more and more beauty and eventually you would come across every >>form that could exist. i tried this for myself once and zoomed a fractal >>for over an hour and came across what looked perfectly like a cartoon >>mickey mouse. > >Mickey Mouse? Hmmmm. . .is this a good thing? > > >Kym > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 22 13:32:15 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:18:45 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View Message-ID: <002901bdcdfb$cf96e4e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 22 Dear Darren: I am ignorant of those Sites and their accessibility. I hope they can be "opened" for me to check them out. Is there a specific address to which I might go ? Thanks, Dallas > Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:18 PM > From: "Darren Porter" > Subject: Re: fractals >I beleive you may be referring to the 'The Colours of Infinity' - hosted by >Arthur C. Clarke with interviews withe Terrence McKenna and Benoir >Mandelbrot amongst others. > >To Dallas, > >Do you know how to search warez or FTP sites? You should do a search for >Fractal Painter or just use the word 'fractal' and I'm sure there will be >many programs available for download. If you are having troubles I can >email you something direct but may be around 2mb even zipped > >Regards > >Darren >aka NOS > > >At 09:52 AM 8/21/98 EDT, you wrote: >> PBS ran an hour program on Fractals several months back. It was >utterly >>fascinating. They enter a formula into a computer and it goes off into >>infinity creating forms, many which closely resemble aspects of nature, trees >>for instance. >>It seems like it might be a key formula in nature's designs. >> - Jake J. >> >> >> >> > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 22 13:37:14 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:09:52 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Missing Principles: The myth of the 7 Message-ID: <002701bdcdfb$ccc6ade0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 22nd. 1998 Dear Bart: I would say that this is one of those pieces of information that it is not possible to give a good speculation about. And if we could, what would be the value to others ? Jake has suggested "sub-principle" that ought to be considered, as part of the "mystery" of the 49 fires ? In S D HPB speaks of every principle being correlated to the rest. I do not think we have enough information to pin that down adequately, do you ? Dallas > Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:00 PM > From: "Bart Lidofsky" > Subject: Missing Principles: The myth of the 7 >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: >> The reference to a "missing" principle in the case of HPB is to be found in >> MAHATMA LETTERS. p. 203, bottom -- for two reasons: 1 -- communications, >> and 2 - preservation of secrecy. >> >> > Jake J.writes: >> > >> >>Blavatsky supposedly had a "missing principle" or sub-principle (to insure >> she >> >>wouldn't reveal certain things esoterically she knew under the pressures >> of >> >>being in the worldly-world), and this is held to be the occult explanation >> for >> >>her erratic temperament. > > Note that, from a set of three, there are 8 ways that they can be >expressed (none of the above, or the "null set" must be included). If >you ignore the null, then you have seven left. Now consider the phrase, >"Naught was" in the first of the verses of Dzyan, and consider it as a >positive rather than negative statement; it is my belief that the clue >to the missing principle lies in there. > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 22 13:41:56 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:16:20 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-ID: <002801bdcdfb$ce0d37a0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Should we not first inquire how a "spiritual experience" can be accurately defined ? What in us experiences such an event ? What would the outstanding characteristics of a "spiritual experience be ? Are there degrees of "spiritual experience ?" Has anyone made a catalog of these to which we might refer ? Is there some difference between "Spiritual" and "psychic" experiences ? How would we define it ? Does Theosophy have anything to say on this subject ? Are there any references that can be advanced to assist students determine what is meant ? It is, to my mind, the same with "altered states." What are they, who perceives them, how is it that we experience them, or, do we only have a memory of them in retrospect, and are not necessarily "awake" when they actually happen ? I think if we are going to resolve any of these matters we ought to at least have a structure on which we may place such information as may be contributed as answers. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:22 PM > From: "Darren Porter" > Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak >Jerry & I saith thus: >>>NOS replies: >>>I sid ONE TRUE INITIATION. There are many 'spiritual experiences' which the >>>naive think are initiations - and yes one need not die to have a spiritual >>>experience - but what of it? >>> >> >>Guess I'm pretty naive then. > >Only in that you don't have the experiential reference point to make a >judgement over the differences in 'initiations' . Most people that have >found their way to theosophy invariably have had some momentus life >experience such as an NDE that helps them understand the basic principal of >unity. If your here then you probably KNOW that this is true. But how do we >explain to common everyday garden variety materialist that is more to this >world than little balls bouncing together? > >>>Unless you have died and I don't mean an NDE which is just another form of >>>hallucination (albeit very inisghtful into the true nature of reality) and >>>STOPPED COMPLETELY (laya state) - that is - all forms of change through >>>thought - you will still be embedded in MAYA. All thoughtis Mayavic, all >>>concepts are mayavic. >>> >> >>Guess what. Even after death we are still in Maya. Thoughts are alive >>and well on the mental plane, which is where Devachan lies. > >Yes - but liberation is found most easily in the after-death state >according to the Bardo Thodrol. If time didn't pass by itself we would have >to 'push it' - mentally through thought. We can stop thinking - the goal of >meditation - but unless outside stimulus is removed the 'stopped moment' >may hard to find. > >>>For those interested in performing self-initiations I suggest reading the >>>Rg Veda very thoroughly first and to understand what is meant by Vriti in >>>Chetna (forgive my spelling if slightly out I have 3 books with different >>>nomenclature). Then acquire some true SOMA. Do not attempt it by yourself >>>though. >>> >> >>Self-initiations do not require a Rg Veda or any other book. I have >>had many myself, but then I am very naive so they probably don't count >>for much. > >Jerry your humility is very becoming. But trust me you will know the >difference between an epiphany (with moving thought or expereince) and >union with the laya state. The question is - what disturbance in pure >consciousness causes the mental spiral into thought-form - cosmic desire? > >> >>>But ask yourself, once I know everything and Understand completely (gnosis) >>>what do I wnat then? >>> >> >> >>Then you will want to share it with others. > >I'm trying but it's hard. > >Darren > > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 22 16:50:21 1998 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 17:45:05 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Spiritual experiences Message-ID: <42d1a670.35df3be3@aol.com> Here's something on spiritual experiences and "Initiation" from L. G. Plummer's article "The Sacred Seasons and Initiation in the May, 98 "Theosophy World": ".... When one moves into the fourth Initiation, which is related to the Winter Solstice, he has learned that the four seasons of the year relate generally to the four periods of human life: infancy, adolescence, maturity, and then death, or the passing. The Initiation at the Winter Solstice, which is the fourth, brings the Initiant to the point where he experiences what he had previously been taught: he begins actually to learn by experience. And when he comes back, he then is able to Teach." Most descriptions I've read about mystery school "Initiations" seem largely to be symbolic, or recapitulations of what happens in real life. (But then, the real Mystery Schools probably don't get written about!) They are not real initiations, but meant to symbolize a stage that the aspirant goes through. Rawson (?), I think, gives a really impressive description of one in Isis Unveiled. - Jake J. From ???@??? Sun Aug 23 12:02:08 1998 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 17:52:55 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Are you or aren't you? Message-Id: <199808231652.RAA19597@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Kym wrote: >I've never read Meade's book but the passage Paul cites here is very >intriguing. It asks the important question: WHY would a "Master" be so >contradictory, so full of human emotions, pursuits, and errors? I often >wondered while reading THE MAHATMA LETTERS why, at times, the "Masters" >could be so downright crabby, snappy, and snippy. And WHY would a "Master" >be interested in novels - granted, some of them are pretty spicy, but?? And >WHY would a "Master" be admittedly ignorant when it comes to Western >Science, but yet still believe that "he" is in a position to peg the faults >of Western Science? Some of us just don't see it like this at all. It is as if we are reading different letters. Marion Meade, from the pieces that were quoted, was only able to see outside, and that as she saw it. We all tend to see the outside of things differently. She couldn't see the pearls. Just reading the MAHATMA LETTERS isn't enough. To what extent is she (Meade) interested in practical Theosophy? Practical Theosophy, study and meditation can enable the student/tourist to see rather more. Can aid in ferreting out the inner meaning. Can help to go to the CAUSE, rather than getting caught up in the effects. >It asks the important question: WHY would a "Master" be so >contradictory, so full of human emotions, pursuits, and errors? The very simple answer is, they are not. >I often >wondered while reading THE MAHATMA LETTERS why, at times, the "Masters" >could be so downright crabby, snappy, and snippy. This is because you are getting in the way (this is not meant to be personal, we all do it) of what is really being said. >And WHY would a "Master" >be interested in novels - granted, some of them are pretty spicy, but?? Because of the occult TRUTHS and warnings they convey. And >WHY would a "Master" be admittedly ignorant when it comes to Western >Science, but yet still believe that "he" is in a position to peg the faults >of Western Science? Because of the ignorance and limitations of Western Science. Tony Persistence with the letters, and a true interest in going to the inner meaning, makes the Marion Meade quotes irrelevant. The letters are a life-time(s) study . . . From ???@??? Sun Aug 23 18:17:09 1998 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 18:12:23 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: High Speed Internet Access Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980823181223.01148220@mail.eden.com> Today I got a first hand feel for high speed Internet access. With a 10Mbps Ethernet access, I was able to down load a 15MB file in less than 3 minutes. For example the entire 2 volume SD can be downloaded in less than 2 minutes. This is possible not in any high tech large corporation. This is possible now for students in colleges. Access possible from libraries, dining areas, departments, and dorms at no extra cost to the student. The access is provided as part of the facilities provided to the students. I think this gives a taste of things to come within the reach of every man, woman and child. The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the classics will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than one's time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On the other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But some theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most part. Information access due to Internet and the growth of e-mail as a medium of communication is showing an astounding growth with no end in sight. Anyone either unwilling to see it or blind to the possibilities inherent is likely to be in for a shock of their lives, soon. mkr From ???@??? Sun Aug 23 19:47:10 1998 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 17:48:52 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Critique of Alice Bailey and Her Claims Message-ID: <35E0B874.31EE@azstarnet.com> References: <004201bdcd56$0942dba0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Interested readers may want to peruse the following critique of Alice Bailey and her claims: Theosophy's Shadow by Nicholas Weeks Originally published in the magazine FOHAT, this revised and expanded version can be found on the WWW at: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/baileyal.htm If any reader wants to do a formal reply/rebuttal, we will be happy to post it on the same website. From ???@??? Sun Aug 23 20:17:10 1998 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:06:23 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Computers Message-ID: <8662e22b.35e0bc90@aol.com> MKR writes: >But some >theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >part. ======================== Seems to me most all you say about the internet, et. al. is pretty true, very interesting, and a great way to spread Theosophical literature, but think you underestimate the "dark side" or shadow that follows the technology. Nature never gives you something for nothing, and Somewhere there is a big price to pay - maybe in the psychological realm. Good people can use computers but bad people can too. On sticking to paper technology, A good book will last hundreds of years, while the longevity of computer disks/ technology, etc. is unproven. Maybe some mega--virus or something will hit and wipe out computer technology for years, or an unprecedented Solar storm will have some unforseen electromagnetic effect, or who knows. The majority of the world's population is too poor, far too poor to purchase a computer, but they need no support apparatus to have an read a book. ==================== Also - for what it is worth, for anybody that might have me in an address book - my mmrj@powersupply.net address is no longer any good. - Jake J. From ???@??? Sun Aug 23 20:47:10 1998 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 20:34:13 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Computers Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980823203413.00a37810@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <8662e22b.35e0bc90@aol.com> At 09:06 PM 8/23/1998 EDT, you wrote: >MKR writes: > >>But some >>theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >>going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >>printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >>part. >======================== > Seems to me most all you say about the internet, et. al. is pretty true, >very interesting, and a great way to spread Theosophical literature, but think >you underestimate the "dark side" or shadow that follows the technology. >Nature never gives you something for nothing, and Somewhere there is a big >price to pay - maybe in the psychological realm. Good people can use computers >but bad people can too. > On sticking to paper technology, A good book will last hundreds of >years, while the longevity of computer disks/ technology, etc. is unproven. >Maybe some mega--virus or something will hit and wipe out computer technology >for years, or an unprecedented Solar storm will have some unforseen >electromagnetic effect, or who knows. The majority of the world's population >is too poor, far too poor to purchase a computer, but they need no support >apparatus to have an read a book. >==================== > Also - for what it is worth, for anybody that might have me in an >address book - my mmrj@powersupply.net address is no longer any good. > > Anytime technology is there, there is going to be some downside to it. What one has to see is whether in the overall, the upside overwhelms the downside. Take for example air travel. While we still have parts of the world using horses, bulls, mules and foot for travel, many have been helped a lot by airplanes. mkr From ???@??? Sun Aug 23 22:47:10 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:21:55 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980824132155.007d9a60@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <002901bdcdfb$cf96e4e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> For Dallas: http://www.softseek.com/Education_and_Science/Math/Review_6249_index.html An evaluation copy is available free from this site. Of course if your naughty you can go to Lycos, Alta Vista, Hot Bot or Yahoo and do a search for "warez" or "zeraw" - this will give you a list of sites that contain full versions for downloading - of course if you don't own a license to the software then downloading the program might not be completely ethical. But information wants to be free. At 11:18 AM 8/22/98 -0700, you wrote: >Aug 22 > >Dear Darren: > >I am ignorant of those Sites and their accessibility. I hope they can be >"opened" for me to check them out. Is there a specific address to which I >might go ? > >Thanks, > >Dallas > >From: "Darren Porter" >Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:18 PM >Subject: Re: fractals > > >>I beleive you may be referring to the 'The Colours of Infinity' - hosted by >>Arthur C. Clarke with interviews withe Terrence McKenna and Benoir >>Mandelbrot amongst others. >> >>To Dallas, >> >>Do you know how to search warez or FTP sites? You should do a search for >>Fractal Painter or just use the word 'fractal' and I'm sure there will be >>many programs available for download. If you are having troubles I can >>email you something direct but may be around 2mb even zipped >> >>Regards >> >>Darren >>aka NOS >> >> >>At 09:52 AM 8/21/98 EDT, you wrote: >>> PBS ran an hour program on Fractals several months back. It was >>utterly >>>fascinating. They enter a formula into a computer and it goes off into >>>infinity creating forms, many which closely resemble aspects of nature, >trees >>>for instance. >>>It seems like it might be a key formula in nature's designs. >>> - Jake J. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 10:39:07 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:35:37 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View Message-Id: <199808241531.KAA30186@proteus.imagiware.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980824132155.007d9a60@ozemail.com.au> References: <002901bdcdfb$cf96e4e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Regarding fractals, the best program, totally free, supporting hundreds of fractals, dozens of video displays, and user-defined formulas as well, is fractint. It's home page is at: http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/fractint.html I've used the program for years, and find it very helpful in seeing, generating, and coming to appreciate fractals. -- Eldon From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 14:42:04 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:26:31 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Spiritual experiences and the brain Message-ID: <35E1BE67.3C94185@usa.net> "Searching for God in the machine" David Noelle a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, a joint project of Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Pittsburgh shoots down all mystical religious experiences as nothing more than a "trick of the mind", a deception and a fraud. Quote: "I have certain positive knowledge from my own direct experience. I can't put it any plainer than that. I have seen God face to face." With these words, the fictional theologian Palmer Joss defends his religious convictions in Carl Sagan's 1985 novel, "Contact". Joss argues for the existence of his Christian god on the basis of personal revelation. And Joss is not alone. Many religionists rest their faith on the apparently solid foundation of personal religious experiences. Some receive visions, others hear a comforting voice, almost all experience a "sense of presence"... We may, quite rightly, reject such subjective experiences as lacking the necessary qualities of scientific evidence, such as reproducibility and openness to consensual validation or critique. **[comment: If these people are reporting similar experiences, then the results ARE being reproduced]** The religionist may retort, however, that his belief may not be scientifically justifiable, but he knows it to be true, nonetheless, because of his private religious revelation. To completely counter this argument for the existence of god(s), some alternative explanation must be given for the religious experience. Researchers in the fields of psychology and neuroscience have begun to uncover the biological mechanisms that might give rise to these feelings… I will briefly review and critically assess some of these scientific findings, focusing specifically on three questions: 1. Circuitry--What brain circuits are involved in religious experiences? 2. Modularity--Does the brain contain a special module dedicated to religious experience? 3. Innateness--Is there a "religion instinct" that is genetically "hard-wired" into our brains? **[The author then goes on to assess these.]** His conclusion… ..(1) In brief, religious experiences are seen as the result of "temporal lobe transients" (TLT)--short-lived increases and instability in the firing patterns of neurons in the temporal lobe. These transients are seen as miniature versions of the seizures experienced by temporal lobe epileptics, and they are thought to occasionally arise in healthy people. While these results are interesting, Persinger's work involving the actual generation of religious experiences is much more striking. In a typical experiment the subject is isolated from sound, and the eyes are covered. A helmet equipped with solenoids is strapped to the head. While reclining in this state of partial sensory deprivation, currents are induced in the subject's brain … By manipulating the magnetic field the experimenter has some control over the location and pattern of induced current in the brain... when temporal cortical areas are targeted for stimulations, subjects often report dreamlike visions (often with "mystical" or "religious" content) a "sense of presence," and strong emotions... Persinger's investigations have yet to fully confirm his views on the neurological bases of religious experience, but he has made tremendous progress. **[tremendous progress into proving that he can generate religious experiences through a machine, and therefore "all religious experiences must occur inside the physical brain"]** Modern science is beginning to understand the neurological mechanisms that give rise to the religious experiences of the believer. Given these results, the skeptic may present the believer with a simple question: How do you know that your religious experience is not a simple trick of your brain -- the unfolding of a perfectly natural temporal lobe transient? How can you trust such an experience when, through science, we can convincingly mimic the face of God?" (end of quote) From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 16:40:24 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:25:34 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Re: Approaching the Adepts Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980825092534.007ad200@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808211321.IAA10085@proteus.imagiware.com> To Dallas: >Enjoyed your comments on mine on "meeting Adepts." > >Personally, the reason why I refer to the core or original texts is because >they convey so much. We may think a lot of things but is our thought "on >line?" > >Having found out how valuable Theosophy is I frequently revisit old friends >and review what I have learned in terms of what I looked at earlier -- a >kind of consolidation. Is it still true ? There is indeed much in the early texts of modern theosophy, and, like other literature of profound content, they can keep on revealing more and more, with repeated reading. The experience of coming back to a book we got a lot out of some time in the past, and finding new meaning in it is a tribute to not only the depth of the book, but to the growth and inner sensitization of the person over that time. How we know our thought is "on line" is something which, of course, each of us must determine in their own way. There is a balance to be struck between the reliance on outer sources and on inward experience and insight, as we assign the sense of authority to our ways of knowing. Inner and outer can be used to test the other and develop a best estimate of how we believe the universe to be. That is how we find whether our thought is on line, apart from experiencing the results of our actions. And not only do people differ greatly in where they fall on this spectrum, but the same person can shift significantly on the spectrum as they go through life and their inner world becomes richer. So, in a sense the literature is like a stake providing support for a young tree as it grows. It is extremely valuable when it is young, but in the end, the tree stands of its own strength. To change the metaphor, it is a magnificent but partial map of a landscape we have already begun to walk upon. >As to the Bridge building. I agree that it is from both sides. But it is >important to grasp that the potentials are not only inside us, primarily, >but also in every other being (mankind included) which seem so "outside" to >our usual "personal" view. Ah.... I like it. More than a little insight there, I dare to say :-) Best wishes Murray From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 19:35:35 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:20:49 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View Message-ID: <006f01bdcfbf$88056500$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 24th Thank you Eldon for the reference on FRACTALS. Will visit and learn more. Dallas > Date: Monday, August 24, 1998 8:51 AM > From: "Eldon B Tucker" > Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View >Regarding fractals, the best program, totally free, supporting >hundreds of fractals, dozens of video displays, and user-defined >formulas as well, is fractint. It's home page is at: > > http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/fractint.html > >I've used the program for years, and find it very helpful in >seeing, generating, and coming to appreciate fractals. > >-- Eldon > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 19:48:25 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:00:42 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-ID: <006d01bdcfbf$83cb8be0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 24th 1998 Dear Doss: What you report is quite wonderful. Now what would the average PC owner need to have in the way of software or access-ware to be able to do this ? I would observe that the use of paper and printed texts is still a necessity for students. as that is the place where one sets down one's ideas (of course this could be put down on a computer page/file -- and hopefully there would be no crashes ! ) What I would like to address is the following: DATA is fine. But it takes a mind that is fine-tuned to the nuances of what is IMPLIED to digest compare and understand what the data means. So, to my mind this will not render obsolete the written reference material, although actual reference to certain DATA can be accelerated. It still takes a MIND going at its own pace to decipher the implications of such data as is received. What do you think ? Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 23, 1998 4:25 PM > From: "M K Ramadoss" > Subject: High Speed Internet Access >Today I got a first hand feel for high speed Internet access. With a 10Mbps >Ethernet access, I was able to down load a 15MB file in less than 3 >minutes. For example the entire 2 volume SD can be downloaded in less than >2 minutes. This is possible not in any high tech large corporation. This is >possible now for students in colleges. Access possible from libraries, >dining areas, departments, and dorms at no extra cost to the student. The >access is provided as part of the facilities provided to the students. > >I think this gives a taste of things to come within the reach of every man, >woman and child. > >The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the classics >will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than one's >time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On the >other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But some >theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >part. > >Information access due to Internet and the growth of e-mail as a medium of >communication is showing an astounding growth with no end in sight. Anyone >either unwilling to see it or blind to the possibilities inherent is likely >to be in for a shock of their lives, soon. > >mkr > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 19:51:02 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:27:40 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View Message-ID: <007001bdcfbf$8a36eb00$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 24th Many thanks, will visit and have a look Dallas > Date: Sunday, August 23, 1998 8:56 PM > From: "Darren Porter" > Subject: Re: == FRACTALS == How to find or View >For Dallas: > >http://www.softseek.com/Education_and_Science/Math/Review_6249_index.html > >An evaluation copy is available free from this site. Of course if your >naughty you can go to Lycos, Alta Vista, Hot Bot or Yahoo and do a search >for "warez" or "zeraw" - this will give you a list of sites that contain >full versions for downloading - of course if you don't own a license to the >software then downloading the program might not be completely ethical. But >information wants to be free. > >At 11:18 AM 8/22/98 -0700, you wrote: >>Aug 22 >> >>Dear Darren: >> >>I am ignorant of those Sites and their accessibility. I hope they can be >>"opened" for me to check them out. Is there a specific address to which I >>might go ? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Dallas >> >>From: "Darren Porter" >>Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 7:18 PM >>Subject: Re: fractals >> >> >>>I beleive you may be referring to the 'The Colours of Infinity' - hosted by >>>Arthur C. Clarke with interviews withe Terrence McKenna and Benoir >>>Mandelbrot amongst others. >>> >>>To Dallas, >>> >>>Do you know how to search warez or FTP sites? You should do a search for >>>Fractal Painter or just use the word 'fractal' and I'm sure there will be >>>many programs available for download. If you are having troubles I can >>>email you something direct but may be around 2mb even zipped >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Darren >>>aka NOS >>> >>> >>>At 09:52 AM 8/21/98 EDT, you wrote: >>>> PBS ran an hour program on Fractals several months back. It was >>>utterly >>>>fascinating. They enter a formula into a computer and it goes off into >>>>infinity creating forms, many which closely resemble aspects of nature, >>trees >>>>for instance. >>>>It seems like it might be a key formula in nature's designs. >>>> - Jake J. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 24 19:54:43 1998 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:18:01 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: Approaching the Adepts Message-ID: <006e01bdcfbf$85fd11e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 24th 1998 Dear Murray: Thanks. I have always felt that a "bridge" needs strong foundations and the builders needed to anticipate conditions that might surpass many usual conditions -- so extra resistance and strength is then built into the structure -- I have in Belgium, for instance seen Roman bridges that were about 1900 years old and still being used -- also their roads were still in use. While we may advance in thought, and while we may rely on ourselves (as we all have to) is it not a good idea to be able to compare our ideas with those that were foundational ? This always comes back to me when I consider advanced mathematics and its many aspects -- all, fundamentally are descriptive of special conditions, whether in time or space, and whether static or mobile -- even imaginary conditions and situations are included, but the foundation is still arithmetic, and both geometry and algebra, of even the most complex kinds, is only a derivation whereby the accuracy of distinctions is achieved and described == and even so, that is always for just a moment of time. As an example consider the computations in time and space and motion needed to move a mass from a spinning Earth to a spinning Moon, within a spinning Solar system, and subject to the attraction and influence of a dozen of more spatial objects of various sizes, dimensions and distances -- and it takes either computers, or the magnificent mind of a true astronaut to handle those things. But, when all is said and done those complexities are only resolvable through and because of the primary bases that we first learn at the beginning of our school life. All relates back. That is what I have in mind as concerns the "original" or "core" teachings of Theosophy. If we know them, we can see how the "laws of correspondence and analogy" run through every aspect of the whole system. Best wishes as always, Dallas > Date: Monday, August 24, 1998 2:51 PM > From: "Murray Stentiford" > Subject: Re: Approaching the Adepts >To Dallas: > >>Enjoyed your comments on mine on "meeting Adepts." >> >>Personally, the reason why I refer to the core or original texts is because >>they convey so much. We may think a lot of things but is our thought "on >>line?" >> >>Having found out how valuable Theosophy is I frequently revisit old friends >>and review what I have learned in terms of what I looked at earlier -- a >>kind of consolidation. Is it still true ? > >There is indeed much in the early texts of modern theosophy, and, like >other literature of profound content, they can keep on revealing more and >more, with repeated reading. The experience of coming back to a book we got >a lot out of some time in the past, and finding new meaning in it is a >tribute to not only the depth of the book, but to the growth and inner >sensitization of the person over that time. > >How we know our thought is "on line" is something which, of course, each of >us must determine in their own way. There is a balance to be struck between >the reliance on outer sources and on inward experience and insight, as we >assign the sense of authority to our ways of knowing. Inner and outer can >be used to test the other and develop a best estimate of how we believe the >universe to be. That is how we find whether our thought is on line, apart >from experiencing the results of our actions. And not only do people differ >greatly in where they fall on this spectrum, but the same person can shift >significantly on the spectrum as they go through life and their inner world >becomes richer. > >So, in a sense the literature is like a stake providing support for a young >tree as it grows. It is extremely valuable when it is young, but in the >end, the tree stands of its own strength. To change the metaphor, it is a >magnificent but partial map of a landscape we have already begun to walk upon. > >>As to the Bridge building. I agree that it is from both sides. But it is >>important to grasp that the potentials are not only inside us, primarily, >>but also in every other being (mankind included) which seem so "outside" to >>our usual "personal" view. > >Ah.... I like it. More than a little insight there, I dare to say :-) > >Best wishes > >Murray > > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 00:35:34 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:30:23 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980825003023.013e9530@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <006d01bdcfbf$83cb8be0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Dear Dallas: Here are my responses. At 04:00 PM 8/24/1998 -0700, you wrote: >Aug 24th 1998 > >Dear Doss: > >What you report is quite wonderful. Now what would the average PC owner >need to have in the way of software or access-ware to be able to do this ? > At this time, high speed access is very expensive. Only large institutions and very rich people can afford it. What is needed is telecommunication connection between your computer and the Internet Service Provider. The most likely scenario is ability to get high speed connection via cable used for cable television. The technology is not here yet. In a couple of years it is likely to be available. For now the 33.6 modem is the most cost effective approach for most of us. >I would observe that the use of paper and printed texts is still a necessity >for students. as that is the place where one sets down one's ideas (of >course this could be put down on a computer page/file -- and hopefully there >would be no crashes ! ) > Agreed. Paper is not going away. >What I would like to address is the following: > >DATA is fine. But it takes a mind that is fine-tuned to the nuances of what >is IMPLIED to digest compare and understand what the data means. > What we are seeing is information overload. But the ability to access info is going to be valuable. >So, to my mind this will not render obsolete the written reference material, >although actual reference to certain DATA can be accelerated. > >It still takes a MIND going at its own pace to decipher the implications of >such data as is received. > >What do you think ? > >Dallas > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 04:35:34 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 21:11:28 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980825211128.007a6140@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808231400.JAA00393@proteus.imagiware.com> Responding to Dallas >Should we not first inquire how a "spiritual experience" can be accurately >defined ? An excellent idea. Probably the first question to come up in such an inquiry would be What does "spiritual" mean? One word, with many shades and layers of meaning that must be crammed into it - and having to be unpacked at the receiving end. It makes me think of the word "sky". Try changing "I had a spiritual experience" into "I had a sky experience". We happen to know that the sky has a troposphere, a stratosphere, an ionosphere, a van Allen belt, and more. Then, we could have been just looking at the sky, floating in the sky under a balloon, flying through it at speed, hovering far above it in a satellite ... We have probably have more knowledge about the sky than the spiritual realms. Well, I think I've made the point - several of them. One of the points, of course, is that with our present state of knowledge, small as it is, there are still far too many different things that the word "spiritual" can be legitimately used for, so we need to qualify it with adjectives - such as there are. I think that accurate definition is very difficult at present, given that spiritual experience can be only *very* partially described. That, in fact is probably one of its main defining features! There are some characteristics we can probably agree on, though, to define it in a very modest way. Let's put forward transcendence, expansiveness, sense of light, joy, all-embracing love, all-knowingness, sense of inner power, consciousness outside the normal repertoire of states, consciousness outside the body in another space. These, in varying mixtures and various degrees, would seem to be pretty common elements in what are often called spiritual experiences. We could go on to try to match a theosophical, multi-planed world view with types of experience, plane by plane, perhaps - a very difficult thing to do, especially if we're just working in the realm of intellectual models. And how to convey another person's experience, to do such a cataloging job? One would need an adept's sheaf of siddhis, to sense another's states to the depths of their being. Oh, well. :-) It stretches the mind, to think about these things, at least! >Are there degrees of "spiritual experience ?" Has anyone made a catalog of >these to which we might refer ? There is a Religious Experience Research Unit (RERU), as it used to be called, described in the front of the Quest book "The Common Experience - signposts on the path to enlightenment" by Cohen and Phipps. 'For a full account of the research of RERU, (now called the Alister Hardy Research Centre), see Maxwell and Tschudin's "Seeing the Invisible: Modern Religious and Transcendent Experience (Viking, 1990).' (Quoting from Phipps and Cohen.) I haven't seen the second book, but Phipps and Cohen is a delightful collection of first-hand accounts of spiritual or mystical experience, many taken from the extensive collection at the Research Centre, and others from historical records of various mystics etc. >I think if we are going to resolve any of these matters we ought to at least >have a structure on which we may place such information as may be >contributed as answers. Yes, theosophical thought gives us an open framework of such structural elements. All we have to do is be prepared to expand the structure when necessary - like when we have something of such an experience ourselves. To be prepared for our current understanding of the framework to shatter as we enter a new paradigm of understanding. This is something of a repeating cycle, as HPB has indicated in Robert Bowen's notes on How to study theosophy (pages 12 to 13 in the TPH version). I'd love to discuss, or see others discuss, your other questions, but this is enough from me for now. They are all thought-provoking, and critically needing to be considered. Best Wishes Murray From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 08:20:46 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 06:28:12 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980825003023.013e9530@mail.eden.com> Message-Id: References: <006d01bdcfbf$83cb8be0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Dear Doss and Dallas, I find this subject very interesting and the prospects for the future are very promising. The first thing that comes to my mind is countries that have a shortage of books and have no printing of theosophical books at all, like Cuba. When I visited the TS in that country a few years ago I was shocked that there was no copy of the "Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett" in the country. Before my trip I decided to take my own copy (Spanish version) with me and leave it there, as well as my spanish copy of the SD. So you can imagine what the internet could do to the Cuban theosophists. Right now there is a lot of control by the communist regime, and the Section, even if it has a computer system (donated by the Spanish theosophists), it doesn't have internet access, and can't download any theosophical material from the internet. I tried to find a way to connect them through a modem, but they kept telling me that it is not possible. Maybe some they will be able to join the theosophical world community through all means of communication, including high speed internet connection. Rudy >Dear Dallas: > >Here are my responses. > >At 04:00 PM 8/24/1998 -0700, you wrote: >>Aug 24th 1998 >> >>Dear Doss: >> >>What you report is quite wonderful. Now what would the average PC owner >>need to have in the way of software or access-ware to be able to do this ? >> >At this time, high speed access is very expensive. Only large institutions >and very rich people can afford it. What is needed is telecommunication >connection between your computer and the Internet Service Provider. The >most likely scenario is ability to get high speed connection via cable used >for cable television. The technology is not here yet. In a couple of years >it is likely to be available. For now the 33.6 modem is the most cost >effective approach for most of us. > > >>I would observe that the use of paper and printed texts is still a necessity >>for students. as that is the place where one sets down one's ideas (of >>course this could be put down on a computer page/file -- and hopefully there >>would be no crashes ! ) >> >Agreed. Paper is not going away. > >>What I would like to address is the following: >> >>DATA is fine. But it takes a mind that is fine-tuned to the nuances of what >>is IMPLIED to digest compare and understand what the data means. >> >What we are seeing is information overload. But the ability to access info >is going to be valuable. > >>So, to my mind this will not render obsolete the written reference material, >>although actual reference to certain DATA can be accelerated. >> >>It still takes a MIND going at its own pace to decipher the implications of >>such data as is received. >> >>What do you think ? >> >>Dallas >> >> > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 11:23:48 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:16:13 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-Id: <199808251616.AA02277@lafn.org> >>Are there degrees of "spiritual experience ?" Has anyone made a catalog of >>these to which we might refer ? >>I think if we are going to resolve any of these matters we ought to at least >>have a structure on which we may place such information as may be >>contributed as answers. At the Home Page of the Dharma Realm Buddhist Association one can order chapter 8 of the ~Surangama Sutra~. This, with Master Hua's commentary, tells of the 50 samadhi-like, yet misleading "spiritual" states one can experience. They are related to the five skandhas -- 10 for each one. -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 13:20:47 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:11:19 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980825131119.0171fba0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19980825003023.013e9530@mail.eden.com> <006d01bdcfbf$83cb8be0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Dear Rudy: I think the situation in the East European countries is also very interesting. Most have good connection to Internet, I believe, and hence they can have easy and almost free and any on line stuff is invaluable. Even in India where paper is scarce, Internet connection is becoming more and more easily available. On another aspect, I was at a meeting yesterday. The company said that any new information, updates etc are first posted and then only the hard copy is printed and mailed. This is what many organizations are doing. On the other hand, theosophical organization(s) are still behind; they don't appear to care to use Internet to disseminate information; they stick to hard copy. May be there is some *occult* reason behind it, which may be a secret, or something else, who knows. mkr PS: BTW, I was told that there are some higher educational institutions where the only way you can apply for admission is via Internet!!! At 06:28 AM 8/25/1998 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Doss and Dallas, > >I find this subject very interesting and the prospects for the future are >very promising. The first thing that comes to my mind is countries that >have a shortage of books and have no printing of theosophical books at all, >like Cuba. When I visited the TS in that country a few years ago I was >shocked that there was no copy of the "Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett" in >the country. Before my trip I decided to take my own copy (Spanish version) >with me and leave it there, as well as my spanish copy of the SD. So you >can imagine what the internet could do to the Cuban theosophists. Right now >there is a lot of control by the communist regime, and the Section, even if >it has a computer system (donated by the Spanish theosophists), it doesn't >have internet access, and can't download any theosophical material from the >internet. > >I tried to find a way to connect them through a modem, but they kept >telling me that it is not possible. Maybe some they will be able to join >the theosophical world community through all means of communication, >including high speed internet connection. > >Rudy > > >>Dear Dallas: >> >>Here are my responses. >> >>At 04:00 PM 8/24/1998 -0700, you wrote: >>>Aug 24th 1998 >>> >>>Dear Doss: >>> >>>What you report is quite wonderful. Now what would the average PC owner >>>need to have in the way of software or access-ware to be able to do this ? >>> >>At this time, high speed access is very expensive. Only large institutions >>and very rich people can afford it. What is needed is telecommunication >>connection between your computer and the Internet Service Provider. The >>most likely scenario is ability to get high speed connection via cable used >>for cable television. The technology is not here yet. In a couple of years >>it is likely to be available. For now the 33.6 modem is the most cost >>effective approach for most of us. >> >> >>>I would observe that the use of paper and printed texts is still a necessity >>>for students. as that is the place where one sets down one's ideas (of >>>course this could be put down on a computer page/file -- and hopefully there >>>would be no crashes ! ) >>> >>Agreed. Paper is not going away. >> >>>What I would like to address is the following: >>> >>>DATA is fine. But it takes a mind that is fine-tuned to the nuances of what >>>is IMPLIED to digest compare and understand what the data means. >>> >>What we are seeing is information overload. But the ability to access info >>is going to be valuable. >> >>>So, to my mind this will not render obsolete the written reference material, >>>although actual reference to certain DATA can be accelerated. >>> >>>It still takes a MIND going at its own pace to decipher the implications of >>>such data as is received. >>> >>>What do you think ? >>> >>>Dallas >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 17:15:55 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:26:35 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-ID: <002d01bdd075$1caea300$03e78ccc@nwc.net> August 24th 1998 Dear Rodolfo: SPANISH EDITIONS OF THEOSOPHICAL BOOKS. If you can let me have your snail-mail address I can ask the THEOSOPHY COMPANY to mail you a copy of their catalog of Theosophical books in Spanish (if you do not already have it). If you prefer dealing with them directly you can either phone them at: 213-748-7244, or Fax: 213-748-0634 Address THEOSOPHY COMPANY, 245 W 33rd St., Los Angeles, Ca., 90007 and ask them to send you their catalog of both English and Spanish editions. I would assume that the censors in Cuba will permit small individual shipments of books ? But you have the most recent experience. Best wishes, Dallas Best wishes > Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:30 AM > From: "Rodolfo Don" > Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access >Dear Doss and Dallas, > >I find this subject very interesting and the prospects for the future are >very promising. The first thing that comes to my mind is countries that >have a shortage of books and have no printing of theosophical books at all, >like Cuba. When I visited the TS in that country a few years ago I was >shocked that there was no copy of the "Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett" in >the country. Before my trip I decided to take my own copy (Spanish version) >with me and leave it there, as well as my spanish copy of the SD. So you >can imagine what the internet could do to the Cuban theosophists. Right now >there is a lot of control by the communist regime, and the Section, even if >it has a computer system (donated by the Spanish theosophists), it doesn't >have internet access, and can't download any theosophical material from the >internet. > >I tried to find a way to connect them through a modem, but they kept >telling me that it is not possible. Maybe some they will be able to join >the theosophical world community through all means of communication, >including high speed internet connection. > >Rudy > > >>Dear Dallas: >> >>Here are my responses. >> >>At 04:00 PM 8/24/1998 -0700, you wrote: >>>Aug 24th 1998 >>> >>>Dear Doss: >>> >>>What you report is quite wonderful. Now what would the average PC owner >>>need to have in the way of software or access-ware to be able to do this ? >>> >>At this time, high speed access is very expensive. Only large institutions >>and very rich people can afford it. What is needed is telecommunication >>connection between your computer and the Internet Service Provider. The >>most likely scenario is ability to get high speed connection via cable used >>for cable television. The technology is not here yet. In a couple of years >>it is likely to be available. For now the 33.6 modem is the most cost >>effective approach for most of us. >> >> >>>I would observe that the use of paper and printed texts is still a necessity >>>for students. as that is the place where one sets down one's ideas (of >>>course this could be put down on a computer page/file -- and hopefully there >>>would be no crashes ! ) >>> >>Agreed. Paper is not going away. >> >>>What I would like to address is the following: >>> >>>DATA is fine. But it takes a mind that is fine-tuned to the nuances of what >>>is IMPLIED to digest compare and understand what the data means. >>> >>What we are seeing is information overload. But the ability to access info >>is going to be valuable. >> >>>So, to my mind this will not render obsolete the written reference material, >>>although actual reference to certain DATA can be accelerated. >>> >>>It still takes a MIND going at its own pace to decipher the implications of >>>such data as is received. >>> >>>What do you think ? >>> >>>Dallas >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 19:50:37 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:02:01 +0000 From: "Andrew Rooke" Subject: Giants - any recent discoveries? Message-id: <377D0091A76@mmclib.med.monash.edu.au> Priority: normal I was very interested to read the recent messages regarding discoveries of the remains of Giants. The reports I have read come from ancient or historical literature and this was reflected in the Theos-talk messages. Does anybody know of any recent discoveries of such remains as the lack of such evidence is often mentioned in criticism of theosophical teachings on the antiquity of Man. What I had in mind are reports in the scientific rather than popular literature. Good wishes to all Andrew Rooke From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 20:35:38 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:41:22 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access In-Reply-To: <002d01bdd075$1caea300$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Message-Id: Thank you Dallas, I will call THEOSOPHY COMPANY tomorrow and request their catalogs. My experience with shipments to Cuba is not positive. I took a duffel bag full of books to Cuba, most of them donated by Espa=F1a Lodge in Los Angeles. Those books got to the Cuban Section, because they were part of my luggage when I travelled there, but sending them by mail is a different story. Even letters sometimes they never get there. I'm going to try to send them the books catalog and also I'm going to write to the president and see if she feels that the political situation has changed to the extent that it would be possible for them to try to get a modem and an internet account. Thank you for your information. Rudy Don 757 Welburn Avenue Gilroy, CA 95020 >August 24th 1998 > >Dear Rodolfo: > >SPANISH EDITIONS OF THEOSOPHICAL BOOKS. > >If you can let me have your snail-mail address I can ask the THEOSOPHY >COMPANY to mail you a copy of their catalog of Theosophical books in >Spanish (if you do not already have it). > >If you prefer dealing with them directly you can either phone them at: >213-748-7244, > or Fax: 213-748-0634 > >Address: THEOSOPHY COMPANY, > 245 W 33rd St., > Los Angeles, Ca., 90007 > >and ask them to send you their catalog of both English and Spanish editions= =2E > >I would assume that the censors in Cuba will permit small individual >shipments of books ? But you have the most recent experience. > >Best wishes, > >Dallas > >From: "Rodolfo Don" >Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:30 AM >Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access > >>Dear Doss and Dallas, >> >>I find this subject very interesting and the prospects for the future are >>very promising. The first thing that comes to my mind is countries that >>have a shortage of books and have no printing of theosophical books at all= , >>like Cuba. When I visited the TS in that country a few years ago I was >>shocked that there was no copy of the "Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett" in >>the country. Before my trip I decided to take my own copy (Spanish version= ) >>with me and leave it there, as well as my spanish copy of the SD. So you >>can imagine what the internet could do to the Cuban theosophists. Right no= w >>there is a lot of control by the communist regime, and the Section, even i= f >>it has a computer system (donated by the Spanish theosophists), it doesn't >>have internet access, and can't download any theosophical material from th= e >>internet. >> >>I tried to find a way to connect them through a modem, but they kept >>telling me that it is not possible. Maybe some they will be able to join >>the theosophical world community through all means of communication, >>including high speed internet connection. >> >>Rudy >> >> >>>Dear Dallas: >>> >>>Here are my responses. >>> >>>At 04:00 PM 8/24/1998 -0700, you wrote: >>>>Aug 24th 1998 >>>> >>>>Dear Doss: >>>> >>>>What you report is quite wonderful. Now what would the average PC owner >>>>need to have in the way of software or access-ware to be able to do this >? >>>> >>>At this time, high speed access is very expensive. Only large institution= s >>>and very rich people can afford it. What is needed is telecommunication >>>connection between your computer and the Internet Service Provider. The >>>most likely scenario is ability to get high speed connection via cable >used >>>for cable television. The technology is not here yet. In a couple of year= s >>>it is likely to be available. For now the 33.6 modem is the most cost >>>effective approach for most of us. >>> >>> >>>>I would observe that the use of paper and printed texts is still a >necessity >>>>for students. as that is the place where one sets down one's ideas (of >>>>course this could be put down on a computer page/file -- and hopefully >there >>>>would be no crashes ! ) >>>> >>>Agreed. Paper is not going away. >>> >>>>What I would like to address is the following: >>>> >>>>DATA is fine. But it takes a mind that is fine-tuned to the nuances of >what >>>>is IMPLIED to digest compare and understand what the data means. >>>> >>>What we are seeing is information overload. But the ability to access inf= o >>>is going to be valuable. >>> >>>>So, to my mind this will not render obsolete the written reference >material, >>>>although actual reference to certain DATA can be accelerated. >>>> >>>>It still takes a MIND going at its own pace to decipher the implications >of >>>>such data as is received. >>>> >>>>What do you think ? >>>> >>>>Dallas >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > From ???@??? Tue Aug 25 23:20:38 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:13:42 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980825231342.0088d9a0@mail.eden.com> Here is some interesting info in today's news. Presents a great opportunity to present theosophy. Is anyone interested and awake? mkr America's online: 70.5 million adults More than a third of adults in the USA are online. That means 70.5 million (34.9%) of the 202 million U.S. adults use the Internet, says a survey by Nielsen Media Research and CommerceNet, out Tuesday. Almost 80 million in the USA and Canada are online, up 21 million in nine months. From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 02:00:59 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:48:02 -0700 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-ID: <35E3AFA1.2E5B@lainet.com> References: Rudy, Didn't you tell me that the books were confiscated at customs, or something like that. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rodolfo Don wrote: > > Thank you Dallas, > > I will call THEOSOPHY COMPANY tomorrow and request their catalogs. My > experience with shipments to Cuba is not positive. I took a duffel bag full > of books to Cuba, most of them donated by España Lodge in Los Angeles. > Those books got to the Cuban Section, because they were part of my luggage > when I travelled there, but sending them by mail is a different story. Even > letters sometimes they never get there. > > I'm going to try to send them the books catalog and also I'm going to write > to the president and see if she feels that the political situation has > changed to the extent that it would be possible for them to try to get a > modem and an internet account. > > Thank you for your information. > > Rudy Don > 757 Welburn Avenue > Gilroy, CA 95020 > > >August 24th 1998 > > > >Dear Rodolfo: > > > >SPANISH EDITIONS OF THEOSOPHICAL BOOKS. > > > >If you can let me have your snail-mail address I can ask the THEOSOPHY > >COMPANY to mail you a copy of their catalog of Theosophical books in > >Spanish (if you do not already have it). From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 07:40:49 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:09:11 GMT From: "Bee Brown" Subject: Re: Sutratman Address?? Message-ID: <35e5dea7.12745913@smtp.ihug.co.nz> References: <199808192358.AA17131@lafn.org> In-Reply-To: <199808192358.AA17131@lafn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:58:54 -0700, you wrote: > >Dear S: > >AOL says you have "permanent fatal errors" at the sutratman address. I=20 >tried two or three times, but it keeps bouncing back. Same with the=20 >other "L" address. Same thing with the NZ discussion list. Cheers Bee From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 08:39:33 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 06:32:57 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access In-Reply-To: <35E3AFA1.2E5B@lainet.com> Message-Id: References: No, all the books were given to the Cuban Section and they really appreciated them. The section had a special ceremony to accept them, they set up a table with all of them, they had refreshments, etc. They treated it as a true occassion. It was really nice! Later on I mentioned something about the "Mahatma Letters" to a theosophist from Spain, and in one trip to Cuba that somebody made from Spain, they took 10 copies of the M.H. to Cuba, and gave them to the Section. It was a special trip for me to meet with the Cuban theosophists. Rudy >Rudy, >Didn't you tell me that the books were confiscated at customs, or >something like that. > >Martin > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 09:36:33 1998 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:42:27 -0700 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-Id: <199808261432.JAA12680@proteus.imagiware.com> Rudy, Is there a internet provider (private) in Cuba that the TS may subscribe? If yes, maybe we can all contribute to support that effort. We could also send a lot of information in a CD (740 MB). We could also work in accummulating Theosophical material in Spanish in some site. Just an idea, my brother. ========================================================== Regarding the internet, the information is great, but my eyes get tired very quickly, and therefore very impractical for me. It is a great tool for research. One can spend hours everyday in viewing, reviewing, downloading tons of information . . . So what . . . And after all that : Do you know yourself more than before? Are you a more compassionated person? Are you (quoting from Isis "thoroughly eliminating from ... mind and spirit ... selfishness and other impurity ... also the infection of superstition and prejudice?" Not really if there is no quality time left for meditation and the practical aspects of daily living in a social community. I prefer an equilibrium of virtual information and attending to live presentations and group meetings were I can participate in the group aura and the magic resulting from the synergy of sharing, cooperation and warmth. So, I do not share with Ramadoss his 'virtual' dream of seeing information flowing mainly through virtual channel, monitor screens which ultimate will be solder to some brain neurons . . . Martin Leiderman in beautiful West L. A. From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 10:21:31 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:12:16 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: The Spiritual Tourist by Mick Brown Message-ID: <35E425D0.951@azstarnet.com> References: <199808261432.JAA12680@proteus.imagiware.com> A new book is out, or an updated edition, that may be of some interest to Theosophists. The Spiritual Tourist by Mick Brown I'm told this book has a long chapter that tries to make sense of the complex Theosophical story. "The atmosphere of the book is completely different from that of Peter Washington." I'm also informed that Mick Brown quotes from my critique K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS. This will be interesting. The book is available in September. See Amazon.com at the following URL: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582340013/002-3067191-0518237 Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 11:54:46 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 06:46:43 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Sutratman Address?? Message-ID: <004401bdd110$ea170120$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 26th 1998 Dear Bee: Your own address seems to have disappeared -- I used the old one, but did not get through. What is it now, please ? Dallas As to "Sutratma" I heard from him/her and they were going on a trip to India. and may visit my sister in Bangalore [ Sophia TenBroeck Email: sophia10@hotmail.com ] It is possible that the Email addresses are temporarily in abeyance. I also posted a note through theos-talk advising that I could not contact. Best wishes. Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 5:50 AM > From: "Bee Brown" > Subject: Re: Sutratman Address?? >On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:58:54 -0700, you wrote: > >> >>Dear S: >> >>AOL says you have "permanent fatal errors" at the sutratman address. I >>tried two or three times, but it keeps bouncing back. Same with the >>other "L" address. > > >Same thing with the NZ discussion list. >Cheers >Bee > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 12:09:48 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:12:34 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Giants - any recent discoveries? Message-ID: <004501bdd110$f1197020$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 26th 1998 Re: GIANTS and their remains Dear Andrew: Although I read a number of scientific journals every month I have not noticed that any of them speak of the recent discovery of large skeletons. I was looking over a rather large book that surveyed certain areas where Scientific museums and repositories concealed (it was so alleged) information which was damaging to the generally accepted hypothesis concerning the dating of "evolution" of man's physical form from an APE. If you are interested I will try and get for you more details on this rather large book, published in San Diego in the last year, I believe. It goes rather persuasively into scientific concealment -- and that seems to be on a rather large scale for some reason. Who wants to buck Academia ? -- and hope for any recognition ? In the past 50 years the Leakys have pushed man's antiquity back to over 4 million years. In School when I was taught about 300,000 years was the then accepted probable date. Why is there this tendency to keep evolution recent ? Of course the discoveries of enormous distances and times in the Cosmos through astro-physics has enlarged our modern perceptions as to time and space. So why not the Earth too, and man's ancestry ? Have you followed in the matter of the Sphinx and Egypt the recent conflict as to its building or carving date, raised by the geologists who claim that evidence of erosion (by rain and water) shows it had to be built around 10,500 BC when Egypt received are more rain than it does now. Of course the Egyptologists are in conflict with the geologists, as a revision of that date would render their dating obsolete. And the same matter pertains to the building of the Pyramids, which in theosophy is said to be 50 to 75,000 years ago. In ISIS and S D are several references to Giants, Cyclopeans, Titans, Kabiri and their remains: SD II 154 277-88 336 341 347 350 365 409-10 753-4 352 674 678 723 753-5 ISIS I 31 122 125 133 148 150 153 (303-4) 549 567 595 ISIS II 218 275 422 448 450 487 As I recall, Charles Fort in his books gave accounts as reported in Newspapers, etc., of the discovery of giant forms. Velikovsky in the 1940s also wrote of giants and the revisions necessary in the chronology of Egypt. Have you seen those books ? Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:02 PM > From: "Andrew Rooke" > Subject: Giants - any recent discoveries? >I was very interested to read the recent messages regarding >discoveries of the remains of Giants. The reports I have read come >from ancient or historical literature and this was reflected in the >Theos-talk messages. Does anybody know of any recent discoveries of >such remains as the lack of such evidence is often mentioned in criticism of theosophical >teachings on the antiquity of Man. What I had in mind are reports in >the scientific rather than popular literature. > >Good wishes to all > >Andrew Rooke > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 12:13:27 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:44:34 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: Let the true initiates speak Message-ID: <004601bdd110$f25ff9e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 26th 1998 Dear Murray: May I interject below some more comments ? Dallas > Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 2:44 AM > From: "Murray Stentiford" > Subject: Re: Let the true initiates speak >Responding to Dallas > >>Should we not first inquire how a "spiritual experience" can be accurately >>defined ? > >An excellent idea. Probably the first question to come up in such an >inquiry would be What does "spiritual" mean? One word, with many shades and >layers of meaning that must be crammed into it - and having to be unpacked >at the receiving end. It makes me think of the word "sky". Try changing "I had a spiritual >experience" into "I had a sky experience". We happen to know that the sky >has a troposphere, a stratosphere, an ionosphere, a van Allen belt, and >more. Then, we could have been just looking at the sky, floating in the sky >under a balloon, flying through it at speed, hovering far above it in a >satellite ... We have probably have more knowledge about the sky than the >spiritual realms. Well, I think I've made the point - several of them. ======================================= DALLAS:I would say that is an excellent symbol to use. ======================================== >One of the points, of course, is that with our present state of knowledge, >small as it is, there are still far too many different things that the word >"spiritual" can be legitimately used for, so we need to qualify it with >adjectives - such as there are. I think that accurate definition is very difficult at present, given that spiritual experience can be only *very* partially described. That, in fact >is probably one of its main defining features! There are some >characteristics we can probably agree on, though, to define it in a very >modest way. Let's put forward transcendence, expansiveness, sense of light, >joy, all-embracing love, all-knowingness, sense of inner power, >consciousness outside the normal repertoire of states, consciousness >outside the body in another space. These, in varying mixtures and various >degrees, would seem to be pretty common elements in what are often called >spiritual experiences. ========================================= Dallas: I agree tha definitons are difficult, but I have been thinking that we could narrow down someof the paramenters and arrive at some way in which this could be adjusted to knows as well as some other more general factors that could be considered. Let me try this and see what you think: All those descripitons of "spiritual" I would endorse, but, do you notice how we tend to describe "spiritual" in terms of 'feeling and emotion ?' Is there anything more definite ? Next we describe it as a 'condition,' and often ascribe to spirituality a different kind of 'state of consciousness ?' But have we a list or roster of "states of consciousness," and some acceptable and generally agreed on idea of what they are. For instance: 1. Awake; 2. Sleep (unconscious); 3. Dreaming (including invountary and 'guided -- lucent' dreams); 4. Induced unconsciousness, as under anesthesia; 5. trance; 6. 'Meditation' -- when the mind is so focused on a subject that it is unconscious and unaware of events around; 7. Chanelling, or 'mediumship,' when one is a voluntary transmition point for some extraneous influence [ Such 'influences' to be devined. ]; 8. Controlled, partially aware, or fully aware transmission as by an "Adept;" 9. Full control of one's Consciousness, so that any of these states can be entered or observed in another -- with full awareness and understanding -- Adeptship, or Mahatmaship; 10. The power to see any aspect of the Akasa, so that the past, present and future of any being, civilization, or World can be made clear --- accessibility to the "memory" of the Universe and all its contents. There are probably dozens of states and sub-states that I have not described, as I tried to visualize those which Theosophical literature gives illustrations of. To continue -- It is almost as though we said that in our present condition either "spirtuality" was rare, or impossible. However since we do conceive of it, and ascribe noble and altruistic qualities (impersonality and universality) to it, we do have, even in our present condition of waking consciousness some idea of what it might represent. Here are some of my thoughts ? 1. The Universe is One whole. It runs under Law -- from the largest to the smallest event Law rules. It may be called Karma. But to describe Karma, we can say that nothing is excluded from its operation. It is just and impartial as it returns to the casue the effects of that cause and all the moral and mental impressions that are invisibly made as well as the visible and physical acts. 2. This implies that the Universe and all its contents (the many beings, visible and invisible, from the sub-atoms to the extra-Galaxies, etc...) are subject to Karma. We do not know all the details of karmic operation, (Theosophical literature sketches many of them) but even Science depends on repetition and similarity to verify all experimental results independently of original findings/observations. Testimony and independent repetition of observations and experiments tends to prove accepted facts. It is from such facts (if the preentations are complete) that hypothesis and theory evolves. 3. Therfore every being in the Universe is sensitive to the impressions of thoughts, feelings, and actions done/initiated by other beings, be they men, super-men or infra-man (whatever those terms may include) . I think that this idea of interrelationship and close cooperation is often excluded from our considerations. But it is dangerous not to, as it leaves great gaps in our knowedge. 4. If all beings are interrelated, then any disturbance of their condition is either beneficial or detrimental to their being. In human terms we often speak of "motive." But this is difficult to define, as it is usually concealed and private to the one who generats it. However it has one of the greatest powers to modify the living of ourselves and others in which we have an interest. 5. I would say that among mankind the "motive" is highly important. here we enter on the little known realm of ethics: I would call that fairness toothers. The "Golden Rule in careful attentive application all the time. Prophet and sages continuously speak of this. This is the mysterious area of "virtues," and "vices." The area of motive. The area of ethics and of morals (nd I don't mean communal or tribal customs). 6. What dimension does Theosophy add: It speaks of the immortality of the EGO/Soul and the Spirit (a ray of the One SPIRIT) that is at the core of not only each member of humanity, but at the core of every atom, molecule, cell -- in a range that disappears into our vague concept of the Infinte Universe -- the WHOLE, whether manifest or non-manifest. [ Theosophy describes the human MONAD as a stage in Monadic evolution where it acquires the faculty of the mind, with all the mental capabilities and powers. In Theosophy the nature of the Monad is described as triune: SPIRIT-WISDOM-MIND] 7. To this concept, Theosophy speaks of the reincarnation process that marks the progress of every individual Monad (spirit/soul/mind). It speaks of the progress of the MONAD (first as atma/buddhi or Spirit/wisdom, and then, having become lit up with the fire of Mind: atma-buddhi-manas) from the "life-atom" to the orgnaization of the Galactic Universe in its entirety. 8. It speaks of the "probationary" condtion of mankind -- that each of us is in a universal educational program. Thisprogram is one where we are confronted with the information of the orgnaizations of the Universe in all its aspects, visible and invisible. 9. Learning and progress in this "school" is always a matter of individual choice for us, the pupils. ================================== > >We could go on to try to match a theosophical, multi-planed world view with >types of experience, plane by plane, perhaps - a very difficult thing to >do, especially if we're just working in the realm of intellectual models. >And how to convey another person's experience, to do such a cataloging job? >One would need an adept's sheaf of siddhis, to sense another's states to >the depths of their being. Oh, well. :-) It stretches the mind, to think >about these things, at least! > >>Are there degrees of "spiritual experience ?" Has anyone made a catalog of >>these to which we might refer ? > >There is a Religious Experience Research Unit (RERU), as it used to be >called, described in the front of the Quest book "The Common Experience - >signposts on the path to enlightenment" by Cohen and Phipps. 'For a full >account of the research of RERU, (now called the Alister Hardy Research >Centre), see Maxwell and Tschudin's "Seeing the Invisible: Modern Religious >and Transcendent Experience (Viking, 1990).' (Quoting from Phipps and >Cohen.) I haven't seen the second book, but Phipps and Cohen is a >delightful collection of first-hand accounts of spiritual or mystical >experience, many taken from the extensive collection at the Research >Centre, and others from historical records of various mystics etc. > >>I think if we are going to resolve any of these matters we ought to at least >>have a structure on which we may place such information as may be >>contributed as answers. >Yes, theosophical thought gives us an open framework of such structural >elements. All we have to do is be prepared to expand the structure when >necessary - like when we have something of such an experience ourselves. To >be prepared for our current understanding of the framework to shatter as we >enter a new paradigm of understanding. This is something of a repeating >cycle, as HPB has indicated in Robert Bowen's notes on How to study >theosophy (pages 12 to 13 in the TPH version). > >I'd love to discuss, or see others discuss, your other questions, but this >is enough from me for now. They are all thought-provoking, and critically >needing to be considered. > >Best Wishes > >Murray > AND THESE ARE RETURNED TO YOU WITH INTEREST DALLAS > > > From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 16:02:32 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:33:55 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980826143355.007ac5c0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808261400.JAA09844@proteus.imagiware.com> Doss wrote: >America's online: 70.5 million adults > >More than a third of adults in the USA are online. >That means 70.5 million (34.9%) of the 202 million U.S. adults use the >Internet, says a survey by Nielsen Media Research and CommerceNet, >out Tuesday. The problem still remains that most people on the Internet are still male, have higher incomes, and lean toward conservatism. The Net is not balanced (reflective of the population) by any means yet, as minorites, the elderly, and low-income people still lack the tools and means to access the Internet. That remains a serious problem for they are really the ones who need information the most. I have also noticed that the Internet itself is becoming much more complicated in the ways to access information - fancier programs and, worse, companies and organizations that used to offer free information are now charging for it. In addition, web sites that offer information are also requiring that people get the latest up-to-date plug-ins in order to access their offerings, plug-ins which require more memory and more expensive computers in which to utilize such plug-ins. My own university professors now require documented Internet references when writing papers, consequently, I have seen many students - mainly lower-income - who must spend more time away from home and in the computer lab at school doing their homework - a definite disadvantage for single mothers and other people who cannot afford child care. Yes, the Internet is a fantastic resource, but it still remains elusive and intrusive in many people's lives. Kym From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 16:32:06 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:27:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <199808262127.WAA09846@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> mkr wrote: >Here is some interesting info in today's news. Presents a great opportunity >to present theosophy. Is anyone interested and awake? What are you suggesting mkr? The 202 million US adults are here just the same. Why do you feel the internet is going to make such a difference to the 70.5 million or the 202 million US citizens? It is just another super highway, a broad path in an ever changing world. Martin Leiderman gave a measured reply, and one with which I sympathise, using words like aura . . . . The internet is a souless place for many. And regarding an earlier mail: >The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the classics >will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than one's >time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On the >other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But some >theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >part. It is interesting that so far the opposite is happening. People are buying more books as a result of the internet. Very clever really. People read a bit of the book on the Internet, and then want to buy the book. A good marketing ploy. How is it really going to help humanity, spread brotherhood, reduce poverty and disease in all the kingdoms of nature around the planet, more than anything else? The internet can certainly divert attention away from Reality. It is only as good as the people that use it. Tony From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 20:57:28 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:52:19 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: An update on Internet Users Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980826205219.0088d5c0@mail.eden.com> the rate of increase of users of Internet is very interesting. mkr =============================== As reported in an AP report: "Women over 50 among fastest-growing Internet groups" "Once the domain of the young and technically inclined, the Internet increasingly is taking root with a wide cross-section of Americans." "Among the fastest-growing groups online were blacks and Indians, as well as young adults 16-24 and women over 50. The study showed an increase of 50 percent in the number of American women over 50 using the Internet during the nine months ending in June, accounting for nearly 5 million users. The numbers of men under 50 using the Internet grew almost half as fast during the same period. ..the study estimated that 70.2 million Americans over 16 use the Internet. That represents 35 percent of adult Americans... And for the first time, the report said, the majority of Americans between 16-24 are using the Internet -- about 18.8 million of them, including 70 percent of men in that age group and 51 percent of women. "I'm still pretty new to it," confessed Diane Park, a social worker near Seattle and an Internet neophyte who logs on from her local library." But a closer look at the figures showed the largest gains in Internet use among some minorities: Asian adults were especially active online, with the highest rates of all racial groups: 58 percent of Asian men and 38 percent of Asian women. Among blacks, the report estimated 24 percent use the Internet, an increase of 53 percent from nine months earlier. The report estimated that 868,000 American Indians were online, or 24 percent, an increase of 70 percent over nine months. Last month, a report from the Commerce Department showed that whites are more than twice as likely to own a home computer as blacks or Hispanics, and that a racial disparity in PC ownership exists even among families earning more than $75,000. ======== From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 21:03:38 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:48:37 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980826174837.009fbd70@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808261432.JAA12680@proteus.imagiware.com> Very good idea. Of course this should be a private venture if it is to attract funds from every theosophist whatever organization (or none) to donate and succeed in real terms. More later. mkr ----------------------------------------------- At 11:42 PM 8/25/1998 -0700, you wrote: >Rudy, > >Is there a internet provider (private) in Cuba that the TS may >subscribe? > >If yes, maybe we can all contribute to support that effort. >We could also send a lot of information in a CD (740 MB). We could also >work in accummulating Theosophical material in Spanish in some site. >Just an idea, my brother. > >========================================================== > >Regarding the internet, the information is great, but my eyes get tired >very quickly, and therefore very impractical for me. It is a great tool >for research. One can spend hours everyday in viewing, reviewing, >downloading tons of information . . . So what . . . And after all that >: Do you know yourself more than before? Are you a more compassionated >person? Are you (quoting from Isis "thoroughly eliminating from ... mind >and spirit ... selfishness and other impurity ... also the infection of >superstition and prejudice?" > >Not really if there is no quality time left for meditation and the >practical aspects of daily living in a social community. > >I prefer an equilibrium of virtual information and attending to live >presentations and group meetings were I can participate in the group >aura and the magic resulting from the synergy of sharing, cooperation >and warmth. > >So, I do not share with Ramadoss his 'virtual' dream of seeing >information flowing mainly through virtual channel, monitor screens >which ultimate will be solder to some brain neurons . . . If there is any doubt about my view on the matter, every channel of communication and every method interaction has be to fully exploited. One technology which has just come on board and is picking up speed and has great potential is Internet. > >Martin Leiderman >in beautiful West L. A. From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 21:08:11 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:02:16 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980826180216.009b4db0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808262127.WAA09846@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> At 10:27 PM 8/26/1998 +0100, you wrote: >mkr wrote: > >>Here is some interesting info in today's news. Presents a great opportunity >>to present theosophy. Is anyone interested and awake? > >What are you suggesting mkr? The 202 million US adults are here just the >same. Why do you feel the internet is going to make such a difference to >the 70.5 million or the 202 million US citizens? It is just another super >highway, a broad path in an ever changing world. > >Martin Leiderman gave a measured reply, and one with which I sympathise, >using words like aura . . . . > >The internet is a souless place for many. > >And regarding an earlier mail: >>The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the classics >>will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than one's >>time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On the >>other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But some >>theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >>going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >>printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >>part. > >It is interesting that so far the opposite is happening. People are buying >more books as a result of the internet. Very clever really. People read a >bit of the book on the Internet, and then want to buy the book. A good >marketing ploy. >How is it really going to help humanity, spread brotherhood, reduce poverty >and disease in all the kingdoms of nature around the planet, more than >anything else? The internet can certainly divert attention away from >Reality. It is only as good as the people that use it. > >Tony Like other tools, Internet is just a tool. What one can do with it depends on one's creativity. The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its effectiveness as a tool. mkr From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 21:12:01 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:58:20 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980826175820.009b4d60@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980826143355.007ac5c0@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808261400.JAA09844@proteus.imagiware.com> At 02:33 PM 8/26/1998 -0600, you wrote: >Doss wrote: > >>America's online: 70.5 million adults >> >>More than a third of adults in the USA are online. >>That means 70.5 million (34.9%) of the 202 million U.S. adults use the >>Internet, says a survey by Nielsen Media Research and CommerceNet, >>out Tuesday. > >The problem still remains that most people on the Internet are still male, >have higher incomes, and lean toward conservatism. The Net is not balanced >(reflective of the population) by any means yet, as minorites, the elderly, >and low-income people still lack the tools and means to access the >Internet. That remains a serious problem for they are really the ones who >need information the most. I have also noticed that the Internet itself is >becoming much more complicated in the ways to access information - fancier >programs and, worse, companies and organizations that used to offer free >information are now charging for it. In addition, web sites that offer >information are also requiring that people get the latest up-to-date >plug-ins in order to access their offerings, plug-ins which require more >memory and more expensive computers in which to utilize such plug-ins. My >own university professors now require documented Internet references when >writing papers, consequently, I have seen many students - mainly >lower-income - who must spend more time away from home and in the computer >lab at school doing their homework - a definite disadvantage for single >mothers and other people who cannot afford child care. > >Yes, the Internet is a fantastic resource, but it still remains elusive and >intrusive in many people's lives. > >Kym I agree with your observations. Hopefully in the future the situation may change. BTW, some Universities now require every one of their students to purchase a computer when they enroll. What they do with those who cannot afford to purchase, I do not know. In the University of Texas at Austin, every dorm is wired for 10Mbs Ethernet and every student is encouraged to get their own computer. Those who do not have a computer, can use the computers at the University. However, I am told that during finals when reports and assignments are due, the waiting time to get on to a computer in these facilities is 4 hours. mkr From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 21:27:30 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:56:13 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Mahatma on TS & HPB Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980826205613.009b5100@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808211903.AA24400@lafn.org> At 12:03 PM 8/21/1998 -0700, you wrote: > ...He said, "The T.S. was their work: it was established to >change the present current of the human mind and destroy Nastikism, >[materialistic atheism]... >-- ><> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles Very informative quote. Appreciate it. There is much talk about the Mystery Schools and TS possibly a pathway to Mystery Schools. In the famous Maha Chohan's letter as well as the above, the objective of launching TS has been clearly stated. It is to be noted that in both instances no mention of TS being a "chela school". Much more attention to the objects of TS may perhaps help revive interest in Theosophy and will contribute to the welfare of Humanity which includes each one of us ....mkr From ???@??? Wed Aug 26 21:33:10 1998 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:25:18 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access In-Reply-To: <199808261432.JAA12680@proteus.imagiware.com> Message-Id: In Cuba everything is controlled by the government. For example you need a special permit to own a fax machine, you can't go to a store and buy it. A few years ago there was a Canadian company that was managing the internet gate in Cuba. I contacted them and they told me that they quit their business in Cuba. Right now I don't know what is happening there. I'm going to write to the TS Section and ask them whether or not it is possible for them to get an e-mail account. Rudy >Rudy, > >Is there a internet provider (private) in Cuba that the TS may >subscribe? > >If yes, maybe we can all contribute to support that effort. >We could also send a lot of information in a CD (740 MB). We could also >work in accummulating Theosophical material in Spanish in some site. >Just an idea, my brother. > From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 09:00:37 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:23:19 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: New Dawn Sep/Oct Issue Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980827232319.007cce50@ozemail.com.au> Table of Contents When Conspiracies Collide Totalitarian technology In Search of the Historical Jesus Establishment Doctors keep you sick Cancer - the Environmental Problem Gay Cancer, Emerging Viruses & AIDS Why Psychiatry should be Abolished Atlantis beneath the Paws of the Sphinx Egypts Lost Legacy Sex & Spirituality: Russia's gnostic Underground Real total war has become information war, it is being fought now..... http://www.peg.apc.org/~newdawn Regards, Darren From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 09:07:47 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:50:23 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: re High Speed Internet Access Message-ID: <35E5641F.3E86E253@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19980826174837.009fbd70@mail.eden.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > > Very good idea. Of course this should be a private venture if it is to > attract funds from every theosophist whatever organization (or none) to > donate and succeed in real terms. More later. There is an organization in New York called The Dorsai Embassy (www.dorsai.org), which for over a decade has been providing computer service, computers, and instruction for people and organizations who could not otherwise afford them (among other things, they provide the space for the New York Theosophical Society). Perhaps they could be a model for others. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 12:33:55 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 06:57:36 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: INTERNET -- ITS VALUE Message-ID: <008401bdd1df$d5e1d020$9b0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> Aug 27th Internet is like a super telephone to me -- an opportunity to meet those who are interested in lines of thought similar to those I find valuable. Its advantage, apart from inexpensive and rapid communication, is that it makes available to those who need and want information. Like everything else, it can be abused. -- just like the telephone. So let's look at the positive side, and say to each other that I might not have met you again in this incarnation without this useful tool Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 2:43 PM > From: "Alpha (Tony)" > Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online >mkr wrote: > >>Here is some interesting info in today's news. Presents a great opportunity >>to present theosophy. Is anyone interested and awake? > >What are you suggesting mkr? The 202 million US adults are here just the >same. Why do you feel the internet is going to make such a difference to >the 70.5 million or the 202 million US citizens? It is just another super >highway, a broad path in an ever changing world. > >Martin Leiderman gave a measured reply, and one with which I sympathise, >using words like aura . . . . > >The internet is a souless place for many. > >And regarding an earlier mail: >>The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the classics >>will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than one's >>time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On the >>other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But some >>theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >>going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >>printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >>part. > >It is interesting that so far the opposite is happening. People are buying >more books as a result of the internet. Very clever really. People read a >bit of the book on the Internet, and then want to buy the book. A good >marketing ploy. >How is it really going to help humanity, spread brotherhood, reduce poverty >and disease in all the kingdoms of nature around the planet, more than >anything else? The internet can certainly divert attention away from >Reality. It is only as good as the people that use it. > >Tony > > > > > From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 12:47:26 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:25:49 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Mahatmas, the T S, Theosophy & HPB -- What can we do ? Message-ID: <008501bdd1df$d888d440$9b0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> Aug 27th 1998 The several positing during the past month have made me reflect on these subjects. Dallas offers: [ These are my thoughts on the subject ] If we desire to know what the Theosophical Society was started for, we need to go to what was stated at its origins, and not at what is now stated after many modifications. It was started (for this age of seekers beginning in 1875) at the behest of the Masters of Wisdom [ see Blavatsky COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 1 xliii, 121 - 125, 73, 94, 526; PATH Magazine Vol. X, p. 55, 368-9. ]. Since that time the pages of THEOSOPHIST Magazine (1879 on ); LUCIFER Magazine (1877 on); and THE PATH magazine (1876 - 1897) reflect those changes in rules that occurred and the events of the early history of the T S and many of its important members have been traced and marked. The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT is quite different from the Theosophical Society -- which is its temporary vehicle for this era and age. Its value the T S ] is retained if it holds Theosophy aloft and if its members and supporters work for that. The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT has no age as it is the exposition of the Laws of Nature -- KARMA. It has always existed and will continue after the "Theosophical Society" (as we know it today) has vanished. HPB has shows its traces in antiquity in ISIS and the SD. Because of the fact that SPIRIT is universal, BROTHERHOOD IS A FACT in Nature. No being of any kind could exist without the support and cooperation of multitudes of other beings. This fact is often overlooked. The atom, the human being and the Galxy are contained in the ONE SPIRIT-- or NATURE. We thus have Universal LAW and Universal BEING. Each of the many "beings" is an immortal, from the spiritual point of view, and a "mortal" from the physical and "personal" point of view (considering the matter that it uses to clothe itself). [ We ought to ask what is the power or force that serves as a center to attract all the matter that forms our bodies ? What is It that organizes and makes of it (the composite body and personality) an instrument for an intelligent Soul (EGO) to live in and use ? CONSCIOUSNESS is the perceptive power of the "Ray of the One Spirit," which is present in every being. In mankind it is the personal Mind. In animals it is their natural Instinct. In plants it is their Sensitivity. In minerals it is their cohesion/dispersion faulty, and so on. According to the laws and objectives of EVOLUTION every Being has the same potential as every other. Differences are the result of condition, position, will and choice -- the "conditions" and "positions," being the inevitable results of such choices. [ A study of the S D will enable a student to acquire a view of the details of the Theosophical Scheme as it is to be found operative on the interlocking, and inter-active, visible and invisible planes of Nature. It is held in Theosophy that it is the individual Consciousness that draws together the necessary instruments and faculties for the EGO/Soul to have experience in successive personalities as it advances in its own evolution (in the company of all the rest).] In mankind the Soul progress and "spiritual" advancement of each human is through the process of reincarnation. Each "personality" is like a bead threaded on the unbreakable "string" of the immortal Spirit within. It is called the "Sutratma." It is only natural that over the course of billions of years the evolution of conscious intelligence has resulted in great knowledge. This has been attained by those who have desired to acquire it. Now what is the key to such an attainment ? There is a restriction placed by Nature and her Laws on such acquisition. No important power or faculty is granted unless the being becomes a BROTHER to all beings. In other words, renders himself HARMLESS to living things, small or great. No use of power for selfish purposes or short-termed benefits is permitted by Nature. This is the most important fact to be understood by all who aspire to learning, power and mastery of Nature's secrets. Nature contains all and is minutely regulated. Thus the key to learning about her is said to be altruism, compassion, nobility, straight-forwardness -- all the "virtues." Initiation is granted by Nature and not by any "man" however wise or learned. This may sound strange as there are many who think (or have been told) that certain individuals have the key to Nature's powers and will convey them to another for a fee. What is it that would permit such a Sage to grant such a favor ? So we think that illumination is granted or acquired ? Perhaps an analogy can help. A candle is prepared of wax and wick and is perfect, ready for use. Fire to light it is lacking. The perfection of form permits those beings who have the "fire of the Mind" to light it up, to open up for it the dawn of thought. First comes the effort to prepare the material. Then when that is ready, the "Mind-Illuminated" appear and grant of their power. This is done under Nature's Law. It is the junction at the right time and season of both the "matter" and the "Spirit." The grant of the mind faculty is done by advanced MINDS -- our glorious and Wise predecessors. so in time when we have learned as They have, we will be able to pass that responsibility on to others who have made themselves"ready." This is the purpose and work of Theosophy in the world. We are those who are "making ourselves 'ready.'" [ see S D I pp. 181 -- 3 lines of evolution ] If we think about these facts we will soon see that the Inner Man is the Spiritual Ray. It has been called the HIGHER SELF. It is not far away, nor different from us. It is interior. It is in this inner "chamber" that we are the closest to Nature--the SPIRITUAL ONE SELF. We have become (under our educational system, so far) accustomed to thinking that powers, learning, wisdom are "external" to us--like 'data' to be acquired and memorized. This is not so. They are internal. The Master we aspire to become (as persons), is already within. We are in contact with IT whenever we desire to be so. But as its nature is not that of our "personal consciousness," we often fail to find it. And, being disappointed or impatient, we resume the futile search outside .... [ see TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp. 66 - 76 ULT Edition ] For this kind of consideration we do not need letters or advice from this or that "authority." We already have this information. It can be found in ISIS UNVEILED, the SECRET DOCTRINE, and is repeated and explained in HPB's writings and those of Mr.. W. Q. Judge. What remains for us to do ? Application. And that seems to me to be the key to our progress from here on. It is self-induced, and it is self-devised. If persisted in, one may attain verification of all that seem like so much theory or doctrine advanced by theosophy, and much of it in contradiction to current accepted ideas. But if, or, as we sense value to Theosophical concepts, we (alone) will make the effort to study and to see if the suggested applications are reasonable. No one is ever asked or expected to take anything on "belief in authority," or "blind faith." Our progress as mind-being is by using the mind faculties we have in potential, and then, developing them. It is the path of self-initiation and self-illumination. [ If we reflect on our school and college experience, we will soon realize that this rule has operated in our early studies and the results are those we determined for ourselves. This is nothing new. ] The powers of self-determination and self-progress (while assisting others all the time) are the first powers to be developed. I do not know if these musings are helpful, but it would be interesting to see if they merit consideration. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 7:35 PM > From: "M K Ramadoss" > Subject: Re: Mahatma on TS & HPB >At 12:03 PM 8/21/1998 -0700, you wrote: > >> ...He said, "The T.S. was their work: it was established to >>change the present current of the human mind and destroy Nastikism, >>[materialistic atheism]... >>-- >><> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > >Very informative quote. Appreciate it. > >There is much talk about the Mystery Schools and TS possibly a pathway to >Mystery Schools. > >In the famous Maha Chohan's letter as well as the above, the objective of >launching TS has been clearly stated. It is to be noted that in both >instances no mention of TS being a "chela school". > >Much more attention to the objects of TS may perhaps help revive interest >in Theosophy and will contribute to the welfare of Humanity which includes >each one of us > >....mkr > > > > From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 13:38:55 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:28:37 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Essentials Message-Id: <199808271828.AA18455@lafn.org> Remember how long thou hast been putting off these things, and how often thou hast received an opportunity from the gods, and yet dost not use it. Thou must now at last perceive of what universe thou art a part, and of what administrator of the universe thy existence is an efflux, and that a limit of time is fixed for thee, which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind, it will go and thou wilt go, and it will never return. Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS II, 4 -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 14:34:16 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:02:02 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <199808271902.UAA10168@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> mkr wrote: > >The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. >I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >effectiveness as a tool. It is apparently very effective as far as pornography, paederasty, etc, go? I thought I heard a figure of 70%, but find it difficult to believe. Perhaps it was 17%, which still seems high. Does anyone know the percentages of the different applications on the internet. Also it is potentially good for business. Also for the many shades of "spiritual" groups. Have the US actually ratified the land mines agreement? Diana, Princess of Wales, with her hands on method, had much to do with the potential banning of land minds. It would seem far more than e-mails. Tony From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 15:04:46 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:39:19 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Essentials Message-Id: <199808271939.UAA12230@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Nicholas Weeks wrote: > >Remember how long thou hast been putting off these things, and how often >thou hast received an opportunity from the gods, and yet dost not use it. >Thou must now at last perceive of what universe thou art a part, and of >what administrator of the universe thy existence is an efflux, and that a >limit of time is fixed for thee, which if thou dost not use for clearing >away the clouds from thy mind, it will go and thou wilt go, and it will >never return. > > Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS II, 4 Thanks for the great quote. Where does the quote you use at the end of your mails come from? Tony >-- ><> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles > "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." > Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 16:32:48 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:56:41 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Re: High Speed Internet Access Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980828085641.007a4a80@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808270157.UAA11827@proteus.imagiware.com> Replying to Martin >Regarding the internet, the information is great, but my eyes get tired >very quickly ... I know the feeling, or a similar one. >It is a great tool >for research. One can spend hours everyday in viewing, reviewing, >downloading tons of information . . . One certainly can. >So what . . . So information on its own doesn't necessarily get you far, I agree. But I don't share your reaction of seeming to turn away from it. To make the most of this enormous opportunity to access the thought of others, one needs to know when to let go any compulsive desire to gain information, and allow time for the other facets of life, as you say. To build, with discrimination, a time structure for different activities that provides all the "organs" required for the body of one's life to live and breathe. Some of the biggest challenges to my love and discipline are in finding a balance in this area, but I know it is possible. As you say yourself, "I prefer an equilibrium ... ". I do not find the Internet to be an *inherently* cold medium of communication. Far from it. Through it I have made new and deep friendships, and shared to the depths of my soul. Not necessarily all on theos-talk, of course ... :) That marvellous thing you describe - the group aura, the synergy and warmth - are possible to a considerable degree, via the electronic media. Of course there's more when you're in the physical presence of people, but I can tune into the mood and subtler aspects of a person through their writing, and I'm sure everyone else can too. In fact, I would say that in the very process of learning to allocate time wisely, we are actually doing some of the work of '(quoting from Isis "thoroughly eliminating from ... mind and spirit ... selfishness and other impurity ... '. Murray In beautiful New Zealand - another Pacific rim region From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 16:59:08 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:48:15 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Mahatma on TS & HPB Message-Id: <199808272148.AA02780@lafn.org> >There is much talk about the Mystery Schools and TS possibly a pathway to >Mystery Schools. > >In the famous Maha Chohan's letter as well as the above, the objective of >launching TS has been clearly stated. It is to be noted that in both >instances no mention of TS being a "chela school". >....mkr In one of HPB's (I think) letters to the American Section she said plainly something like: The TS was not founded to be a nursery for occultists or a factory for adepts. Best, -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 17:03:48 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:41:08 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Essentials Message-Id: <199808272141.AA01066@lafn.org> >Where does the quote you use at the end of your mails come from? >Tony "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." This one comes from B:CW 11, 49 -- her article "On Pseudo-Theosophy". The same idea can be found in "What is Truth?" (B:CW 9, 34). It goes: "But to approach even terrestrial truths requires, first of all, *love of truth for its own sake*, for otherwise no recognition of it will follow. And who loves truth in this age for its own sake?" Best, -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 19:00:22 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 18:47:22 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808271902.UAA10168@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> At 08:02 PM 8/27/1998 +0100, you wrote: >mkr wrote: >> >>The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >>coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. >>I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >>effectiveness as a tool. > >It is apparently very effective as far as pornography, paederasty, etc, go? >I thought I heard a figure of 70%, but find it difficult to believe. >Perhaps it was 17%, which still seems high. Does anyone know the >percentages of the different applications on the internet. > >Also it is potentially good for business. > >Also for the many shades of "spiritual" groups. > >Have the US actually ratified the land mines agreement? Not yet. > >Diana, Princess of Wales, with her hands on method, had much to do with the >potential banning of land minds. It would seem far more than e-mails. > There may disagreement as to who or which contributed to what extent ban the landmines movement. The fact is that Internet e-mail was very extensively used by the activists to communicate and coordinate with other activists and other entities in various parts of the world. >Tony > From ???@??? Thu Aug 27 19:58:51 1998 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:51:47 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Sutratma?? Message-ID: <1fc01566.35e5ff23@aol.com>> Dallas writes: >As to "Sutratma" I heard from him/her and they were going on a trip to >India. and may visit my sister in Bangalore [ Sophia TenBroeck Email: >sophia10@hotmail.com ] ---------------------------------- As the apparently personal letter to you referred to was posted on Theos- talk and he doesn't mention a wife/companion, I wonder why you call Marshall Heminway III ("SutratmaN") "him/her". Unless I'm misreading, its a rather nasty thing to do isn't it? I tried seeing if he was on AOL, but got "no such screen-name" - so he may have cancelled it after your post revealing his anonymity - which I don't much care for, but guess is his right. A rather strange thing to motivations all around. - I Have been off the list for a few days due to server problems and gods-know- what. - Jake J ".... to defend those unjustly accused (or hasseled)" ============================ Sutratman post: ========================= > Subj: ---private post---private post-----private post---private > Date: 98-08-18 23:50:20 EDT > From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Hi Dallas, You must have forgotten. My new screen name for Theos-Talk is Sutratman. I signed off as "Lmhem111" in Theos-Talk after the chat site fell apart from the Alan Bain controversy. My identity is known only to Ramadoss, Eldon, yourself and Sophia. I prefer to remain anonymous because of all personal invective that goes on in theosophical chat rooms. Something of an irony, I must say !!! My new screen name represents a newer "incarnation" in the chat room, hence, the name "thread soul". My primary Screen Name still remains................ lmhem111@aol. com............so you can always email me there as well. In America Online, a subscriber can have as many as FIVE different screen names or online identities at the same time, a feature which other online services don't offer. I will be leaving for India in several weeks and will be staying there a month. I will be attending ULT in Bangalore on Friday evening, September 25th and possibly Sunday evening. I may be staying at the Holiday Inn at 28 Sankey Road but I may have to stay at another hotel if I get get a reservation there. Best Wishes to you and Valerie Marshall Heminway III (alias Sutratman) >snip< From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 02:27:25 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:36:57 +0000 From: "Andrew Rooke" Subject: Giants - again Message-id: <3AE66A8409A@mmclib.med.monash.edu.au> Priority: normal Many thanks Dallas for your time and trouble in answering my query re- recent discoveries of the remains of giants. So often in theosophical discussion it happens that we seem to be relying on "ancient" evidence when this is not credible to many enquirers. Eg. if bones of giants were exposed in earthquakes etc and recorded by chroniclers of the ancient world, why don't we have the evidence from modern systemmatic investigation, from a much larger population where the earth's land area is more settled and monitored than in ancient days. Perhaps the answer lies in the book you mentoned published in San Diego last year regarding scientific cover-ups. I would be glad to know the details of this book, though one can't help thinking that if anybody discovered the bones of a giant human they would be certain to advertise the fact as they would be certain to obtain a grant for extra scientific investigation! Have you seen the excellent article by Bill Savage in the Theosophic Link 8:3 (also on the WWW at the American Section TS (Pasadena) site) coordinating HPB's chronology of the ancient history of the human race and modern scientific timelines? He mentions the possibility that self-conscious humanity and dinosaurs may have coexisted for a while. To me it seems the enormous interest in movies like Jurassic Park and Godzilla bespeak of some deeply rooted shared memories of these creatures in the human psyche. Thankyou also for your comments on the antiquity of some buildings in ancient Egypt and the material by Charles Fort and Veikovsky. Gives me plenty to think about and points to the value of the Internet as a medium for sharing perspectives across the oceans. All the best, Andrew Rooke - Melbourne, Australia From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 06:57:25 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:03:49 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Sutratma?? Message-ID: <005601bdd27a$57863c20$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Dear Jake: When I reply to someone I usually put the answer function on, and it then sends that answer to the address listed on which it has come in to me. If it is personal it thus remains so. So I did not consciously violate any privacy desire that I was aware of. In Sanskrit the "n" sound to close the word "atma" [ as atman ] is optional. In South India they employ that closure more than in North India as has been my experience when there. For example: Ramakrishna in the North becomes Ramakrishnan in the South, and so on. so to my knowledge the usage of "atma" or "atman" is optional. All Sanskrit words end in a terminal "ah" or "uh" unless specifically truncated by a special sign indicating that the final "ah/uh" is not to be used. Same for the use of the sacred AU(M) -- in the correct pronunciation that final "m" sound is very brief and is the result of closing the lips on the "o" But these sounds have to be heard. Writing distorts them. Dal > Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 6:07 PM > From: "Jake Jaqua" > Subject: Sutratma?? >Dallas writes: > >>As to "Sutratma" I heard from him/her and they were going on a trip to >>India. and may visit my sister in Bangalore [ Sophia TenBroeck Email: >>sophia10@hotmail.com ] >---------------------------------- > As the apparently personal letter to you referred to was posted on Theos- >talk and he doesn't mention a wife/companion, I wonder why you call Marshall >Heminway III ("SutratmaN") "him/her". Unless I'm misreading, its a rather >nasty thing to do isn't it? > I tried seeing if he was on AOL, but got "no such screen-name" - so he >may have cancelled it after your post revealing his anonymity - which I don't >much care for, but guess is his right. A rather strange thing to motivations >all around. > - I Have been off the list for a few days due to server problems and >gods-know- what. > - Jake J > ".... to defend those unjustly accused (or hasseled)" >============================ >Sutratman post: >========================= > >Subj: ---private post---private post-----private post---private >post--- >Date: 98-08-18 23:50:20 EDT >From: "Marshall Hemingway III" >Sender: owner-theos-talk@proteus.imagiware.com >Reply-to: theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Hi Dallas, > >You must have forgotten. My new screen name for Theos-Talk >is Sutratman. I signed off as "Lmhem111" in Theos-Talk >after the chat site fell apart from the Alan Bain controversy. My >identity is known only to Ramadoss, Eldon, yourself and Sophia. >I prefer to remain anonymous because of all personal invective >that goes on in theosophical chat rooms. Something of an irony, >I must say !!! > >My new screen name represents a newer "incarnation" >in the chat room, hence, the name "thread soul". My >primary Screen Name still remains................ >lmhem111@aol. com............so you can always email >me there as well. In America Online, a subscriber can >have as many as FIVE different screen names or online >identities at the same time, a feature which other online >services don't offer. > >I will be leaving for India in several weeks and will be staying >there a month. I will be attending ULT in Bangalore on Friday >evening, September 25th and possibly Sunday evening. I may >be staying at the Holiday Inn at 28 Sankey Road but I may have >to stay at another hotel if I get get a reservation there. > >Best Wishes to you and Valerie >Marshall Heminway III (alias Sutratman) > >>snip< > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 07:26:14 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:49:20 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Giants - again == THE 3RD. ROUND "MATTER" - astral and tenuous Message-ID: <005801bdd27a$5a1c7760$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 28th 1998 Dear Andrew: I will shortly send you details about the book I mentioned, published in San Diego. I recall seeing in a copy of the national Geographic magazine some years ago photographs taken in Utah in the areas where so many fossilized skeletons of dinosaurs, etc are found, of human appearing footprints which were very large in size. some of them overlapped the prints of the dinosaurs, as though they were contemporary imprints in the same "mud" that became fossilized. It was a mystery, but the theory advanced was that the mud had become liquefied at some far later date in order to have human footprints overlapping -- but the theory did not explain how or why they were so huge. In the SD there are references to an early Round (the 3rd) when all matter was "astral" and when the forms were much larger, so that animal man and animal dinosaur were of a comparable size. It is also suggested that the "astral fossils" have been "materialized" so as to leave their imprint in our present (4th Round) matter just as a reflection or impression of that which was made in the original "astral matter." [ see SD II 68fn, 684, 730, 149, 277, 285, 196-7. 686fn, 208, 217-8, ] As I understand the S D, and its view of the history of evolution on our World, the earlier Rounds ( 1, 2, 3, saw "matter" of a far more tenuous kind than that we know of at present -- perhaps the space between the nucleus and the electrons was a wider one ? -- but that may be a very "materialistic" speculation) The SD calls that matter of the 3rd Round "astral" -- and if we apply the law of analogy it is now interior to our "physical matter" and forms the lattice work, the electro-magnetic mold or pattern on which the physical molecules arrange themselves. [ see HPB article: "PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION" ] Hope this is of further help. Dallas. > Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 12:50 AM > From: "Andrew Rooke" > Subject: Giants - again >Many thanks Dallas for your time and trouble in answering my query re- >recent discoveries of the remains of giants. So often in theosophical >discussion it happens that we seem to be relying on "ancient" >evidence when this is not credible to many enquirers. Eg. if bones of >giants were exposed in earthquakes etc and recorded by chroniclers of >the ancient world, why don't we have the evidence from modern >systemmatic investigation, from a much larger population where the >earth's land area is more settled and monitored than in ancient days. >Perhaps the answer lies in the book you mentoned published in San >Diego last year regarding scientific cover-ups. I would be glad to >know the details of this book, though one can't help thinking that if >anybody discovered the bones of a giant human they would be certain >to advertise the fact as they would be certain to obtain a grant for >extra scientific investigation! > >Have you seen the excellent article by Bill Savage in the Theosophic >Link 8:3 (also on the WWW at the American Section TS (Pasadena) site) >coordinating HPB's chronology of the ancient history of the human >race and modern scientific timelines? He mentions the possibility >that self-conscious humanity and dinosaurs may have coexisted for a >while. To me it seems the enormous interest in movies like Jurassic >Park and Godzilla bespeak of some deeply rooted shared memories of >these creatures in the human psyche. > >Thankyou also for your comments on the antiquity of some buildings in >ancient Egypt and the material by Charles Fort and Veikovsky. Gives >me plenty to think about and points to the value of the Internet as a >medium for sharing perspectives across the oceans. > >All the best, > >Andrew Rooke - Melbourne, Australia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 08:27:26 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 05:45:03 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Your Query of 8/13 on "Intent" Message-ID: <03b401bdd285$a44c7780$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 28th Dear Mika:: Forgive the delay in answering as I have to catch up with things after my computer crashed. Intent -- as I conceive it, is the motive aspect of decision. That is how I see it. The reason WHY we do anything. The INTENT (or motive) can be either constructive (positive) or destructive (negative). How do we determine the difference ? Which is preferable ? I like to look at the concept that we live in a Universe that is governed by Law. The laws that operate do so for the constructive progress of all the beings involved in living together. It therefore implies cooperation, interaction, sensitivity to others' needs and wants, and above all it is harmony -- a harmony that is dynamic and tries to balance our individual decisions and actions with the needs of all other living beings around us. One way of translating this is to say that it is SERVICE to all around us. It is the offering of what we know and can do that is best, most impartial, necessary -- to others whom we determine are in need of our services. Now this may not appeal to us, in this world of "supply and demand." But is it not basically true ? It is therefore the 1st Object of the Theosophical Movement: Universal Brotherhood. None of us can say where and how or when we "began." And yet we are all here. We live together. We depend on each other. Science examines Nature. And nature contains and is ALL. It runs according to laws that are inflexible and just and fair to all concerned. The work of all scientists depends on this exact repetitive capacity of Nature. Thus laws are examined and determined. The "Golden Rule" is said to apply ideally in all human relationships: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. -- Put in a couple of words, it is "brotherly service." Let us consider the condition of mankind - which are specialized because they are independent and can control their INTENT and decide what actions to initiate. This is free-will, volition, decision-making. It is the special situation of every human being. He is in effect, teaching himself to live better. Where do we get the knowledge to do this ? Is it not all around us ? We need to sharpen our awareness. What are the rules that can apply here in regard to such matters ? If brotherhood is the best and most harmonious way of proceeding, then we try to do good to others to our family, friends, community, nation, and to the whole world. In history we respect those who have left a mark on time with that kind of attitude and practice. We call them prophets, Sages, wise-men, and feel inspired when we hear accounts of their actions and words. All religions use the concept of a single great Reformer who came to reform the religions of the past and the people to whom he preached and with whom he worked. Jesus for the Christians, Gautama-Buddha for the Buddhists, Lao-Tze for the Chinese Taoists, Mohammed for those of the Islamic faith; Krishna, Rama, and many great Rishis, for the Hindus ... and so on. If the ethics of their work and preaching is studied we find that they are all identical in terms of fundamentals. They lived at different times and worked with peoples of different countries and eras -- yet their teachings are basically the same. Theosophical ethics are identical with those of these various reformers. It is claimed that all are the same, because the Wise are of one Great and immemorial Brotherhood. If we adopt the concept of universal law always in operation -- Karma -- then we may see that every one of our thoughts, feelings and deeds affect others - for good or for ill. If Karma is universally just, we affect the material (the life-atoms) that make up our own physical and psychic natures -- our "Personality." We either improve its capacity or we dull and impair its ability to serve us as a useful tool. It is important to realize that "WE" are not our "Personality." It is in effect a "tool," as we modify it using our will to frame and shape its functioning. It envelopes us, and gives access to others and to various aspects of Nature. But while it may "color" the way we think and feel, it is NOT "US." this is very important to realize. Similarly for our "Mind" and our "feelings." they can be modified by us -- so they are our "tools." In other words we are constantly fashioning, refining or dulling our capacity to perceive to act and to understand. We make our own karma as we go along in life. If this thesis or proposition is correct, why should we make our lives more difficult by choosing to do perversities ? And are not "perversities" the breaking of natural law, and do we not sense that we are about to do this when we start to choose ? Theosophy would say that this halt is the result of our HIGHER SELF -- the Inner, Immortal WE, -- the HIGHER SELF that dwells within, which speaks to us, using the "Voice of the Conscience." Would we not watch over and guide our "intent" into channels of value for all ? And thus, we assist in our own progress, learning and evolution. Cooperation is absolutely essential. We can be selfish or unselfish. The selfish hopes to sequester his or her findings or decisions as one would guard property -- but, for how long can such guarding and isolation last ? And is it truly valuable ? This is I think one of the most vital considerations that Theosophy offers us. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 10:34 AM > From: "Mike Perala" > Subject: Re: ECP Masters >> From: "Bjorn Roxendal" >> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:09:31 -0600 >> Subject: Re: ECP Masters >> >> mika perala wrote: >> > >> > >> > For me, personally, using this kind of 'poetic' language makes me >> > wonder.. I know its no good reason to ignore what they say but it, O >> > sons of Gods!!, just makes me smile and think 'oh, well, they have >> > forgot their daily tranqualizers', or something... >> >> I think the "poetic language" is intentional and an integral part of the >> message. > >What purpose does this 'intent' serve? > >mika perala >Finland > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 08:57:25 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:56:26 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Sutratma?? Message-Id: <199808281356.OAA12661@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Dallas wrote: > >In Sanskrit the "n" sound to close the word "atma" [ as atman ] is >optional. In South India they employ that closure more than in North India >as has been my experience when there. > >For example: Ramakrishna in the North becomes Ramakrishnan in the South, >and so on. so to my knowledge the usage of "atma" or "atman" is optional. >All Sanskrit words end in a terminal "ah" or "uh" unless specifically >truncated by a special sign indicating that the final "ah/uh" is not to be >used. Same for the use of the sacred AU(M) -- in the correct pronunciation >that final "m" sound is very brief and is the result of closing the lips on >the "o" But these sounds have to be heard. Writing distorts them. > Not sure if you are including the SD in this. There is a distinction made in the SD between Atma and Atman. Something like Atma refers to "our" Atma, etc., Atman to the whole. Will try and find the reference if you would like it. Tony From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 12:59:31 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 13:45:42 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-ID: <35E6ECC6.B61EE11A@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> I had thought to stay out of this thread, but there is importance in my answer. Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others. Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they cause much suffering. But by some strange coincidence, none of the countries that ratified the land mine agreement have hostile enemies across a land border from them. For the countries that do, then the evils of land mines pale before the possibility of being overrun, enslaved, and slaughtered. The United States government understands this, and that is why they do not and will not endorse the land mine agreement. Bart Lidofsky M K Ramadoss wrote: > > At 08:02 PM 8/27/1998 +0100, you wrote: > >mkr wrote: > >> > >>The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the > >>coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. > >>I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its > >>effectiveness as a tool. > > > >It is apparently very effective as far as pornography, paederasty, etc, go? > >I thought I heard a figure of 70%, but find it difficult to believe. > >Perhaps it was 17%, which still seems high. Does anyone know the > >percentages of the different applications on the internet. > > > >Also it is potentially good for business. > > > >Also for the many shades of "spiritual" groups. > > > >Have the US actually ratified the land mines agreement? > > Not yet. From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 13:56:37 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:58:26 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online In-Reply-To: <35E6ECC6.B61EE11A@sprynet.com> Message-Id: References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> >I had thought to stay out of this thread, but there is importance in my >answer. > > Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or >generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices >do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of >nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those >not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on >arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others. > > Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they >cause much suffering. But by some strange coincidence, none of the >countries that ratified the land mine agreement have hostile enemies >across a land border from them. For the countries that do, then the >evils of land mines pale before the possibility of being overrun, >enslaved, and slaughtered. Interesting that Tibet never used land mines to protect itself from China, even if they were threatened, and finally overrun and occupied by Chinese forces. There is no good reason to endorse the use of land mines. Rudy Don > > The United States government understands this, and that is why they do >not and will not endorse the land mine agreement. > > Bart Lidofsky > >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> At 08:02 PM 8/27/1998 +0100, you wrote: >> >mkr wrote: >> >> >> >>The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >> >>coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. >> >>I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >> >>effectiveness as a tool. >> > >> >It is apparently very effective as far as pornography, paederasty, etc, go? >> >I thought I heard a figure of 70%, but find it difficult to believe. >> >Perhaps it was 17%, which still seems high. Does anyone know the >> >percentages of the different applications on the internet. >> > >> >Also it is potentially good for business. >> > >> >Also for the many shades of "spiritual" groups. >> > >> >Have the US actually ratified the land mines agreement? >> >> Not yet. > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 14:41:08 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 13:41:26 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #404 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980828134126.007ae420@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808281400.JAA02104@proteus.imagiware.com> Jake wrote: > As the apparently personal letter to you referred to was posted on Theos- >talk and he doesn't mention a wife/companion, I wonder why you call Marshall >Heminway III ("SutratmaN") "him/her". Unless I'm misreading, its a rather >nasty thing to do isn't it? Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do - referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure? I use the nickname "Rilke" who is a guy, but I am a girl - who would know? Kym (Kim) is a common male name for those of Asian background. Besides, for someone like Dallas who utilizes the male pronoun way too often I was right pleased to see a 'him/her' in one of his posts. > I tried seeing if he was on AOL, but got "no such screen-name" - so he >may have cancelled it after your post revealing his anonymity - which I don't >much care for, but guess is his right. A rather strange thing to motivations >all around. It doesn't appear to me that Dallas was the one who revealed Marshall Heminway (Hemingway?) III's real identity. Looks like it came from the author, rather than the replier. And most of us often pretend we are something we are not - and for some of us, that is a good thing. Let's not get our panties bunched without further look-sees. > - Jake J > ".... to defend those unjustly accused (or hasseled)" Well, whaddya know - me too. (although I'm assuming that by "hasseled" you mean "hassled.") Kym From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 19:11:08 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 01:07:24 +0100 (BST) From: "Alpha (Tony)" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #404 Message-Id: <199808290007.BAA18409@mailhost.dircon.co.uk> Kym writes: >Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do - >referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure? I use the nickname >"Rilke" who is a guy, but I am a girl - who would know? It is clear from your style of writing that you are a girl (or a mature girl) - then from your mails, majored in philosophy, and so on ................. >It doesn't appear to me that Dallas was the one who revealed Marshall >Heminway (Hemingway?) III's real identity. Is this his real identity, or just another alias? Just a name for this life. Does anyone on this list feel they know their real identity? - Man Know Thy Self, and all That. Tony From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 19:41:08 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 20:35:05 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-ID: <35E74CB9.8B4F2E9C@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> Rodolfo Don wrote: > Interesting that Tibet never used land mines to protect itself from China, > even if they were threatened, and finally overrun and occupied by Chinese > forces. And look what happened to the people of Tibet, as a result. Do you mean to say that if they had used land mines, the result would have been worse? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 20:14:51 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 10:38:18 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #404 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980829103818.007e4560@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980828134126.007ae420@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808281400.JAA02104@proteus.imagiware.com> Just Alexis/Alexei on TI !!!!!!! At 01:41 PM 8/28/98 -0600, you wrote: >Jake wrote: > >> As the apparently personal letter to you referred to was posted on >Theos- >>talk and he doesn't mention a wife/companion, I wonder why you call Marshall >>Heminway III ("SutratmaN") "him/her". Unless I'm misreading, its a rather >>nasty thing to do isn't it? > >Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do - >referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure? I use the nickname >"Rilke" who is a guy, but I am a girl - who would know? Kym (Kim) is a >common male name for those of Asian background. Besides, for someone like >Dallas who utilizes the male pronoun way too often I was right pleased to >see a 'him/her' in one of his posts. > >> I tried seeing if he was on AOL, but got "no such screen-name" - >so he >>may have cancelled it after your post revealing his anonymity - which I don't >>much care for, but guess is his right. A rather strange thing to motivations >>all around. > >It doesn't appear to me that Dallas was the one who revealed Marshall >Heminway (Hemingway?) III's real identity. Looks like it came from the >author, rather than the replier. And most of us often pretend we are >something we are not - and for some of us, that is a good thing. > >Let's not get our panties bunched without further look-sees. > >> - Jake J >> ".... to defend those unjustly accused (or hasseled)" > >Well, whaddya know - me too. (although I'm assuming that by "hasseled" you >mean "hassled.") > > >Kym > > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 20:24:28 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 10:37:21 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980829103721.007e0aa0@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <35E6ECC6.B61EE11A@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> i don't hink i've ever read a bigger load of stinking bullshit in my life. no Offense. At 01:45 PM 8/28/98 -0400, you wrote: >I had thought to stay out of this thread, but there is importance in my >answer. > > Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or >generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices >do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of >nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those >not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on >arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others. > > Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they >cause much suffering. But by some strange coincidence, none of the >countries that ratified the land mine agreement have hostile enemies >across a land border from them. For the countries that do, then the >evils of land mines pale before the possibility of being overrun, >enslaved, and slaughtered. > > The United States government understands this, and that is why they do >not and will not endorse the land mine agreement. > > Bart Lidofsky > >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> At 08:02 PM 8/27/1998 +0100, you wrote: >> >mkr wrote: >> >> >> >>The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >> >>coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. >> >>I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >> >>effectiveness as a tool. >> > >> >It is apparently very effective as far as pornography, paederasty, etc, go? >> >I thought I heard a figure of 70%, but find it difficult to believe. >> >Perhaps it was 17%, which still seems high. Does anyone know the >> >percentages of the different applications on the internet. >> > >> >Also it is potentially good for business. >> > >> >Also for the many shades of "spiritual" groups. >> > >> >Have the US actually ratified the land mines agreement? >> >> Not yet. > > > > From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 20:26:08 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:22:52 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online In-Reply-To: <35E74CB9.8B4F2E9C@sprynet.com> Message-Id: References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> >Rodolfo Don wrote: >> Interesting that Tibet never used land mines to protect itself from China, >> even if they were threatened, and finally overrun and occupied by Chinese >> forces. > > And look what happened to the people of Tibet, as a result. Do you mean >to say that if they had used land mines, the result would have been >worse? > > Bart Lidofsky > If the Tibetans had chosen land mines their action would have been wrong. Right action is the only thing that matters. They can't control what the Chinese decide to do, but they can control what they themselves do. Can you imagine the Dalai Lama ordering his people to set land mines to kill chinese soldiers? Yes, the result would have been much worse for humanity if the Tibetans had placed land mines in Tibet to kill the chinese invaders. Rudy Don From ???@??? Fri Aug 28 20:29:08 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 10:35:42 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Giants - again == THE 3RD. ROUND "MATTER" - astral and tenuous Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980829103542.007e2670@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <005801bdd27a$5a1c7760$03e78ccc@nwc.net> i remember reading a science fiction take on Gullivers Travels - The explanation was that as one went back in time the people would appear as giants and in the future as midgets, the people weren't in fact any different, everything is shrinking all the time, but you'd never notice because its all relativity. Nos At 04:49 AM 8/28/98 -0700, you wrote: >Aug 28th 1998 > >Dear Andrew: > >I will shortly send you details about the book I mentioned, published in San >Diego. > >I recall seeing in a copy of the national Geographic magazine some years ago >photographs taken in Utah in the areas where so many fossilized skeletons of >dinosaurs, etc are found, of human appearing footprints which were very >large in size. some of them overlapped the prints of the dinosaurs, as >though they were contemporary imprints in the same "mud" that became >fossilized. It was a mystery, but the theory advanced was that the mud had >become liquefied at some far later date in order to have human footprints >overlapping -- but the theory did not explain how or why they were so huge. > >In the SD there are references to an early Round (the 3rd) when all matter >was "astral" and when the forms were much larger, so that animal man and >animal dinosaur were of a comparable size. It is also suggested that the >"astral fossils" have been "materialized" so as to leave their imprint in >our present (4th Round) matter just as a reflection or impression of that >which was made in the original "astral matter." [ see SD II 68fn, 684, >730, 149, 277, 285, 196-7. 686fn, 208, 217-8, ] > >As I understand the S D, and its view of the history of evolution on our >World, the earlier Rounds ( 1, 2, 3, saw "matter" of a far more tenuous kind >than that we know of at present -- perhaps the space between the nucleus and >the electrons was a wider one ? -- but that may be a very "materialistic" >speculation) > >The SD calls that matter of the 3rd Round "astral" -- and if we apply the >law of analogy it is now interior to our "physical matter" and forms the >lattice work, the electro-magnetic mold or pattern on which the physical >molecules arrange themselves. [ see HPB article: "PSYCHIC AND NOETIC >ACTION" ] > >Hope this is of further help. > >Dallas. > >From: "Andrew Rooke" >Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 12:50 AM >Subject: Giants - again > >>Many thanks Dallas for your time and trouble in answering my query re- >>recent discoveries of the remains of giants. So often in theosophical >>discussion it happens that we seem to be relying on "ancient" >>evidence when this is not credible to many enquirers. Eg. if bones of >>giants were exposed in earthquakes etc and recorded by chroniclers of >>the ancient world, why don't we have the evidence from modern >>systemmatic investigation, from a much larger population where the >>earth's land area is more settled and monitored than in ancient days. >>Perhaps the answer lies in the book you mentoned published in San >>Diego last year regarding scientific cover-ups. I would be glad to >>know the details of this book, though one can't help thinking that if >>anybody discovered the bones of a giant human they would be certain >>to advertise the fact as they would be certain to obtain a grant for >>extra scientific investigation! >> >>Have you seen the excellent article by Bill Savage in the Theosophic >>Link 8:3 (also on the WWW at the American Section TS (Pasadena) site) >>coordinating HPB's chronology of the ancient history of the human >>race and modern scientific timelines? He mentions the possibility >>that self-conscious humanity and dinosaurs may have coexisted for a >>while. To me it seems the enormous interest in movies like Jurassic >>Park and Godzilla bespeak of some deeply rooted shared memories of >>these creatures in the human psyche. >> >>Thankyou also for your comments on the antiquity of some buildings in >>ancient Egypt and the material by Charles Fort and Veikovsky. Gives >>me plenty to think about and points to the value of the Internet as a >>medium for sharing perspectives across the oceans. >> >>All the best, >> >>Andrew Rooke - Melbourne, Australia >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 15:41:08 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:40:04 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-ID: <35E86724.6A979A52@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> <3.0.2.32.19980829103721.007e0aa0@ozemail.com.au> D. Porter wrote: > > i don't hink i've ever read a bigger load of stinking bullshit in my life. > no Offense. Stinking bullshit makes excellent fertilizer And calling a statement by a perjorative, without any reasons one way or the other, adds nothing to a conversation. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 15:44:10 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:34:55 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-ID: <35E865EF.AC242865@sprynet.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19980827184722.00a23530@mail.eden.com> Rodolfo Don wrote: > > >Rodolfo Don wrote: > >> Interesting that Tibet never used land mines to protect itself from China, > >> even if they were threatened, and finally overrun and occupied by Chinese > >> forces. > > > > And look what happened to the people of Tibet, as a result. Do you mean > >to say that if they had used land mines, the result would have been > >worse? > If the Tibetans had chosen land mines their action would have been wrong. > Right action is the only thing that matters. They can't control what the > Chinese decide to do, but they can control what they themselves do. Can you > imagine the Dalai Lama ordering his people to set land mines to kill > chinese soldiers? It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. If one is not willing to perform a lesser evil to stop a greater evil, then it is the same as if one has performed the greater evil. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 16:26:09 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:12:58 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Land Mines and Tibet Message-ID: <002601bdd392$38ebb7e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 28th 1998 As I understand it, the spiritual "leaders" of Tibet at no time recommended fighting to protect their land. It is the secular and administrative aspects of the Tibetan Government which decided to oppose with arms the invasion, everyone resents an usurper, and few can resist the impulse to retaliate when property is confiscated and persons are abused. [ Question: Theosophically, How and why did Tibet become subject to such a situation ? ] At least they did not use land mines which are cowardly weapons designed (as is "saturation bombing" or "nuclear bombing" and other acts of terrorism, for instance) to subdue the armed might of a country by spreading terror and horror among its people. Such acts are indefensible, and any country (and its citizens) who support and permit this are inviting the attention of the karma of unbrotherliness and insensitive negligence upon themselves. [ That is my opinion.] If you look carefully at any scheme of government, at their commencement, they established certain rights and privileges for their citizens. Sometimes they established themselves in a revolutionary milieu and at other times there have been peaceful separations and a division and redistribution of administrative functions. [ Belgium / Netherlands in 1830, and Czechoslovakia in the last few years. And there may be other cases of record. ] Usually they adopt rules and laws which are copied from those operative elsewhere. They may be selective but generally there are serious defects, which only can be later rectified by Amendments to constitution or Bill or rights, if those exist. This is the history of most governments. But this is NOT how Karma works. It works on individuals; and when a mass of individuals are have acted in consort, then we have family, racial or national Karma that comes into play. Ideally there ought to be no formal government and all communities ought to be cooperative in the fullest sense if the ideal of Brotherhood were to be applied voluntarily and universally. This sounds like anarchy. But, when you think o fit, all people act independently from moment to moment according to their "conscience." Most government are a kind of enforced cooperation. Most governments end up passing laws which define and constrain abuses. Those are attempts to place ethics on Statute books. And in some cases they legalize ethical abuses. We end up with a two-tier or a multi-tiered set of standards and everything is confused, as those who are amoral or immoral try to circumvent the written (and the unwritten) laws.. However, anyone who has widely traveled knows that the written laws of states and countries are largely unknown to both the visitors and the citizens -- who live according to their innate ethical natures. It is remarkable that most people know what is right and also are aware of what is wrong, no matter where they go, and not taking customary mores into account. To me, it seems that we ought to try and see what the particular result of decisions are that affect the lives of others in terms of the general principles that theosophy offers us to investigate and seek out. At the end of LIGHT ON THE PATH is a valuable essay on KARMA. HPB deals with Karma and reincarnation together in the KEY ( p. 201 ...) In THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, chapter 11 is devote to studying Karma. Those of us who have access to Blavatsky COLLECTED WRITINGS will find in the Index plenty of valuable references to Karma, which, gathered together, give a very complete view of the subject and its ramifications, which like the nerves in our own bodies can be seen to go everywhere throughout all nature and affect everything in Evolution. So, too, in the SECRET DOCTRINE, using the INDEX much can be learned by going through the references available there. Best wishes, Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc,net > Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 5:49 PM > From: "Bart Lidofsky" > Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online >Rodolfo Don wrote: >> Interesting that Tibet never used land mines to protect itself from China, >> even if they were threatened, and finally overrun and occupied by Chinese >> forces. > > And look what happened to the people of Tibet, as a result. Do you mean >to say that if they had used land mines, the result would have been >worse? > > Bart Lidofsky > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 16:34:35 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 11:06:33 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: KARMA -- Its operation -- Universal as reaction following choice. Message-ID: <002501bdd392$36dbc3a0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 28th 1998 What is Karma and where does it Operate ? Dallas offers: IMHO What HPB taught at the beginning of the theosophical Movement covers the basic ideas of karma and the power of free-choice that is ours as human beings. There is in each of us an aspect of the Universal Spirit. Karma is one of its operational factors. It operates to bring the Universe into existence and takes note of our thoughts and feelings and acts. It is always educative, and not punitive. Bad karma" is a misnomer. It is simply the fact that sensitive nature around us, takes notice of our motives and acts, and brings to us, sooner or later, the exact result that those have induced. We may think we have secured an advantage, or that we have settled a score with some other human being by putting them in difficulty. But if we have done this and know that it was a wrong thing to do, we are going to eventually "suffer" from our own error. We always KNOW when we are doing wrong. Land mines are no exception and those who have assisted in their construction, placement and ultimately in the harm they do to unknown other beings will sometime have to suffer the consequences. As far as I have been able to determine the view that Theosophy offers is that all action whether it be thought, feeling, emotion, or actions -- anything involving CHOICE involves Karma. Karma as HPB describes it ( a review of what she writes in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY is helpful, if we want an accurate description of the Law) operates to bring on manifestation. The Great Dhyanis (the WISE ONES ) operate to do this, using the matter from previous Manvantaras, and they do it under the LAWS of the UNIVERSE. Humankind, because of its presence at the balance point of nature in its general evolutionary process is given the "Mind." -- the power to think, the poser to know the various Laws that govern all that is about him, and his own progress. To do this we evolve a "personality" and this includes in our emotional nature likes, dislikes, uncertainties, knowledge and these are usually quite unorganized. The MIND is a tool which enables us to observe and to organize them. It is part of the "personality" but not under its control. In point of evolution it is a superior power. It is impersonal, detached, and able to analyze motive, volition, emotion, and impulse. Essentially MIND is a portion of the INDIVIDUALITY -- the REAL EGOIC ENTITY. This "Individuality (or MONAD)" is said in Theosophy to include: 1. SPIRIT (or rather a "ray" of the ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT); 2. BUDDHI, or Wisdom that has been acquired as the experience of the MONAD through all its evolution up to the present. This ATMA-BUDDHI, taken together are called by HPB the MONAD in evolution, as they are indissolubly linked, And then 3. MANAS -- the Mind. With all its many powers and functions [ see PATANJALI's YOGA-SUTRAS for a full description ] The MIND serves as a link to the "Personality" through the thread that is called "Sutratma" or the "thread-soul." It links the HIGHER MANAS with the LOWER MANAS ( or the embodied mind). In terms of Karma the personality generates it all the time. The INDIVIDUALITY is always detached and is always in complete harmony with Universal KARMA. The purpose of living for us, humans, is said to be to develop (with our "embodied-mind -- Lower Manas) an understanding of the operation of Law in all of Nature's departments and especially in the area of our ability to make free and independent choices. The MORAL/ETHICAL factor is the important faculty to master and develop in this stage of our evolution. The first and primary faculty of the MIND is its independence -- its free-will, and its power to choice. hence our advancement in the evolutionary scheme is said to be "probationary." This is to be carefully understood as our not being the "tools" or subject to the manipulations of a supposed "personal God," angel, Demon, etc., etc., Therefore Theosophy advances the idea that we are linked DIRECTLY through the INDIVIDUALITY to the ONE SPIRIT. We carry in ourselves its entire potential. We educate ourselves and we end up initiating ourselves. In regard specifically to the question of our ability or inability to chose the right thing, or to choose "between two evils" implies that we, interiorly, know what the RIGHT THING IS. Or, we would not have a sense of a "bad" thing Now I may be in error in offering this, and some aspects of karmic action and reaction are not considered here -- as for instance the effect on our "skandhas" (or little lives) when we make bad decisions -- and how they become the "carriers" of our "bad" karma. But there is food for much consideration here, I think. Best wishes, Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc,net > Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 12:06 PM > From: "Rodolfo Don" > Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online >>I had thought to stay out of this thread, but there is importance in my >>answer. >> >> Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or >>generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices >>do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of >>nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those >>not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on >>arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others. >> >> Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they >>cause much suffering. But by some strange coincidence, none of the >>countries that ratified the land mine agreement have hostile enemies >>across a land border from them. For the countries that do, then the >>evils of land mines pale before the possibility of being overrun, >>enslaved, and slaughtered. > >Interesting that Tibet never used land mines to protect itself from China, >even if they were threatened, and finally overrun and occupied by Chinese >forces. > >There is no good reason to endorse the use of land mines. > >Rudy Don > >> >> The United States government understands this, and that is why they do >>not and will not endorse the land mine agreement. >> >> Bart Lidofsky >> >>M K Ramadoss wrote: >>> >>> At 08:02 PM 8/27/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>> >mkr wrote: >>> >> >>> >>The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >>> >>coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. >>> >>I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >>> >>effectiveness as a tool. >>> > >>> >It is apparently very effective as far as pornography, paederasty, etc, go? >>> >I thought I heard a figure of 70%, but find it difficult to believe. >>> >Perhaps it was 17%, which still seems high. Does anyone know the >>> >percentages of the different applications on the internet. >>> > >>> >Also it is potentially good for business. >>> > >>> >Also for the many shades of "spiritual" groups. >>> > >>> >Have the US actually ratified the land mines agreement? >>> >>> Not yet. >> >> > > > > > > From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 16:56:49 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:56:05 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Re: KARMA -- Its operation -- Universal as reaction following choice. Message-ID: <35E878F5.23B5BE6D@sprynet.com> References: <002501bdd392$36dbc3a0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > In regard specifically to the question of our ability or inability to chose > the right thing, or to choose "between two evils" implies that we, > interiorly, know what the RIGHT THING IS. Or, we would not have a sense of > a "bad" thing > > Now I may be in error in offering this, and some aspects of karmic action > and reaction are not considered here -- as for instance the effect on our > "skandhas" (or little lives) when we make bad decisions -- and how they > become the "carriers" of our "bad" karma. > > But there is food for much consideration here, I think. First of all, thank you for understanding the point I have been trying to bring out. Now to the point: For whatever reason, we can end up in a situation where all the possible choices, including inaction, are the "wrong thing". The major lesson of the Bhagavad Gita is that, even if all actions involve doing the "wrong thing", inaction is also a choice, and may be one of the worst ones. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 17:11:09 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 15:42:29 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Advantages of "girldom" Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829154229.007ac780@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808291400.JAA12528@proteus.imagiware.com> Tony wrote: >It is clear from your style of writing that you are a girl (or a mature >girl) - then from your mails, majored in philosophy, and so on ................. Thank you, Tony - seriously. Since, from personal observation, I have found that women often (although not always) have rather interesting styles of writing - meaning they have an ability to combine theory with practicality, the ability to combine hard facts with compassion, and are able to see beyond simple literal interpretations (meaning - understanding the 'big picture'), and possess the very helpful "women's intuition" - I do take such a statement as the one you have made as a compliment. Being judged a male due to one's writings is not necessarily a positive thing. Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 17:41:09 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 16:29:42 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: On the Internet and Identities Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829162942.007b2240@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808291400.JAA12528@proteus.imagiware.com> I just learned something that maybe everyone but me knew already - that there is an e-mail program that allows one to send e-mails "anonymously." I knew one could 'fake' who they were and all that in mails - but I didn't know there was a program specifically geared to completely hide who the sender is or from where it originates from. I just learned this because someone sent me one - it was, as usual in these instances, not complimentary. I also know, because of the context and past exchanges, that the sender is a member of theos-talk. Gentlemen, courage does include signing one's name to one's thoughts and ideas - especially when there is no danger that could come from doing so. There are some instances when remaining completely anonymous is necessary, but I fail to see how doing so in this example is necessary. In addition, sending a post with no origination also does not allow the person accused to reply or defend themselves. Quite untheosophical, not to mention rather wussy, in my opinion. So, to be fair, I guess I'll have to send big, bad, ugly response posts to ALL of you. (ok, just kidding - but to do such a thing would provide me a good amount of twisted glee - yet, alas, I cannot - damn that thing called "conscience"). Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 17:56:09 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:56:21 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #405 Message-ID: <8678ce9f.35e88715@aol.com>> Bart writes in 405: > Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or >generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices >do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of >nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those >not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on >arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others. > Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they >cause much suffering...... ===================================== I think this is true, but then maybe sometimes the choices are so bad it is just better to die, or whatever. I think Tibet should have had a better defense system but land minds is a question - better to kill than miam, perhaps. In this world, anyone who believes that self-defense is not ethical is way too idealistic, I think, even buddhists. In China, everyone that posts on this mailing list whould be in jail unless they quit voicing their viewpoints. I have a reference where the D. Lama expresses the viewpoint that under some situations violence is "OK," but not in the current situation with China - and always productive of more violence, I think he said also. (will look the reference up if someone wants.) ===================== Rilke writes: >Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do - >referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure? ====================== Are you for real? How many "Marshalls" do you know who are women? 'And if one is not sure it is an insult anyway. Also the guy posted on theos-talk a "rap" or free lance verse of a sorts about his appeal for various sorts of women - rather catchy. I don't know what world you live in, but if someone unjustly gets implied to have a gender identity problem around here, they might get killed for it. I think you are not for real.... Maybe this petty criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic ruse to come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise. Are you just coming on to me Kym? Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50, so set your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested. =================== Darren writes: >Just Alexis/Alexei on TI !!!!!!! ==================================== As you wrote this in reference to my post, what the heck does it mean? I would think of Alexis/Alexei as being a woman unless I got a different context off of their letters. This subject is probably better off dropped. - Jake J. From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 18:41:09 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:35:39 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: On the Internet and Identities Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980829183539.01afe3e0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980829162942.007b2240@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808291400.JAA12528@proteus.imagiware.com> At 04:29 PM 8/29/1998 -0600, you wrote: >I just learned something that maybe everyone but me knew already - that >there is an e-mail program that allows one to send e-mails "anonymously." >I knew one could 'fake' who they were and all that in mails - but I didn't >know there was a program specifically geared to completely hide who the >sender is or from where it originates from. I think even with the mail programs, one can set up a fake address and send mail even though if you look at the header, it will reveal the ISP from which the mail is posted. mkr From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 18:44:01 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:33:33 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: On the Internet and Identities Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980829183333.009b2890@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980829162942.007b2240@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808291400.JAA12528@proteus.imagiware.com> A wonderful response I completely agree with. We need to have the courage to stand up to what we believe and what we write and speak. Too often, it is not unknown for many well known people not to do it and try to be anonymous or "use" others to defend themselves, which is nothing but cowardice in my opinion. Like everything in life have their rare exceptions, there may be rare instances when anonymity can help. mkr At 04:29 PM 8/29/1998 -0600, you wrote: >I just learned something that maybe everyone but me knew already - that >there is an e-mail program that allows one to send e-mails "anonymously." >I knew one could 'fake' who they were and all that in mails - but I didn't >know there was a program specifically geared to completely hide who the >sender is or from where it originates from. > >I just learned this because someone sent me one - it was, as usual in these >instances, not complimentary. I also know, because of the context and past >exchanges, that the sender is a member of theos-talk. > >Gentlemen, courage does include signing one's name to one's thoughts and >ideas - especially when there is no danger that could come from doing so. >There are some instances when remaining completely anonymous is necessary, >but I fail to see how doing so in this example is necessary. In addition, >sending a post with no origination also does not allow the person accused >to reply or defend themselves. Quite untheosophical, not to mention rather >wussy, in my opinion. > >So, to be fair, I guess I'll have to send big, bad, ugly response posts to >ALL of you. (ok, just kidding - but to do such a thing would provide me a >good amount of twisted glee - yet, alas, I cannot - damn that thing called >"conscience"). > > >Kym > From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 18:56:09 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:45:05 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Land Mines and Tibet Message-ID: <35E87661.B3A5AD97@sprynet.com> References: <002601bdd392$38ebb7e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > At least they did not use land mines which are cowardly weapons designed (as > is "saturation bombing" or "nuclear bombing" and other acts of terrorism, > for instance) to subdue the armed might of a country by spreading terror and > horror among its people. Such acts are indefensible, and any country (and > its citizens) who support and permit this are inviting the attention of the > karma of unbrotherliness and insensitive negligence > upon themselves. [ That is my opinion.] In bombing, you are killing people who may or may not be involved in invading your land. With land mines, you are killing primarily those who are physically invading your country; all they need to do to stay alive is to leave you alone. The problem is those who innocently walk on to land mines, not knowing they are there. But those innocents and far more would be endangered by an invasion in any case. Once again, we are looking at a situation where ALL solutions involve evil, and do not forget that the action of doing nothing is still an action. It is very easy to pass moral judgment when you're not the one facing the wrong side of a gun. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 20:11:18 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:03:32 +1000 From: "Maurice de Montaine Subject: Re: On the Internet and Identities Message-ID: <35E8A4E4.1245D402@trump.net.au> References: <3.0.5.32.19980829162942.007b2240@pophost.micron.net> Rilke wrote: > I just learned something that maybe everyone but me knew already - that > there is an e-mail program that allows one to send e-mails "anonymously." Actually, it was in the context of a scientific experiment that I responded in that fashion in respect to a rather put-down feminist e-mail I received from you. At least I said nothing in my response, anonymous as it was, that derided, only a sentence about real and genuine philosophy. And as to the other points in your e-mail, these are but personal opinions posited as absolute fact. It is easy to call another a coward in public, which happened to me on TSL/CUT's KOF mailing list, but those who so indulge in this type of behaviour should get their facts right first. I see humans haven't grown much. Maurice From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 20:26:11 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 01:13:39 GMT From: "Bee Brown" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-ID: <35e8a563.391539@smtp.ihug.co.nz> References: <3.0.3.32.19980826180216.009b4db0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980826180216.009b4db0@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:02:16 -0500, you wrote: >At 10:27 PM 8/26/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>mkr wrote: >> >>>Here is some interesting info in today's news. Presents a great = opportunity >>>to present theosophy. Is anyone interested and awake? >> >>What are you suggesting mkr? The 202 million US adults are here just = the >>same. Why do you feel the internet is going to make such a difference = to >>the 70.5 million or the 202 million US citizens? It is just another = super >>highway, a broad path in an ever changing world. >> =20 >>Martin Leiderman gave a measured reply, and one with which I = sympathise, >>using words like aura . . . . >> >>The internet is a souless place for many. >> >>And regarding an earlier mail: >>>The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the = classics >>>will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than = one's >>>time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On = the >>>other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But= some >>>theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long = it is >>>going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* = for >>>printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for = most >>>part. >> >>It is interesting that so far the opposite is happening. People are = buying >>more books as a result of the internet. Very clever really. People = read a >>bit of the book on the Internet, and then want to buy the book. A good >>marketing ploy. =20 >>How is it really going to help humanity, spread brotherhood, reduce = poverty >>and disease in all the kingdoms of nature around the planet, more than >>anything else? The internet can certainly divert attention away from >>Reality. It is only as good as the people that use it. =20 >> >>Tony > >Like other tools, Internet is just a tool. What one can do with it = depends >on one's creativity. > >The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >coordination between activists in various countries was done using = e-mail. >I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >effectiveness as a tool. > >mkr > Our little TS office in New Zealand is getting things moving much quicker with e-mail. We rely on overseas speakers to come once or twice a year and now we can make arrangements much quicker and find out what we need to know, overnight. That is a big help down here where we are more isolated and out of the mainstream of things. We get enquiries from all over about theosophy as it may pertain to NZ from our web site. We also have begun using Amazon book site for ordering books for our branches and the Auckland Book shop.=20 The members on e-mail have a good link with each other via the NZ discuss group and most of us meet at Convention so we know each other personally too. There is always a downside to most things but one needs to use the positive side constructively and sidestep the negative as much as possible. I feel that the Internet is a great source of information. Sometimes I think it might be overkill but I have to decided how much I have time to deal with.=20 Cheers Bee From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 22:11:11 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:00:29 -0600 From: "Kym Smith" Subject: Dangerous ideas Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829210029.007ae3d0@pophost.micron.net> In-Reply-To: <199808292344.SAA19232@proteus.imagiware.com> Jake wrote: > Are you for real? How many "Marshalls" do you know who are women? Before your post (the one I responded to previously), I had no idea what "Sutraman's" birth name was - so how could I possibly know what gender the person was? The name "Marshall" was never entered into the discussion I was referring to - at least, that I recall. >'And >if one is not sure it is an insult anyway. Not being sure if one is male or female through e-mail is an insult? First time I've ever heard that - nor do I believe it. >Also the guy posted on theos-talk a >"rap" or free lance verse of a sorts about his appeal for various sorts of >women - rather catchy. I've no idea to what post you're referring to here. >I don't know what world you live in, but if someone >unjustly gets implied to have a gender identity problem around here, they >might get killed for it. "Gender identity problem" does not even enter into this discussion - we're talking about people not knowing - via e-mail - whether one is male or female. Gender-identity is an entirely different subject and issue. >I think you are not for real.... Maybe this petty >criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic ruse to >come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise. Are you just coming >on to me Kym? Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50, so set >your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested. Why is that many men think that when a woman (or a man) disagrees with them or thinks them vacant in particular areas of thinking that the woman is "just coming on to them?" That is an amazing and ridiculous train of reasoning and has often resulted in women being subject, due to this crap, to very dangerous situations. Maybe some men on this line will think your reference is funny, but I do not. Let me make it clear to you, Jake: 1) I think you were out of line and facts, and just plain unfair, in your attack upon Dallas (I may be guilty of that myself). 2) There is NO solicitation for sex, or any other kind of personal relationship, in my post to you (nor has there ever been nor will there ever be) and for you to infer publically that it is IS a major, and unacceptable, insult. Finally, your statement "typical femine masochistic ruse" is filthy and dead wrong. Your opinion of women (which includes not only me, but the wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers and all other females who are held near and dear in the hearts of men on this list) is revolting. End of thread. - No, on second thought, I'm out of here altogether. I'm sick to death of men thinking this way and other men standing by while it happens. This isn't the first time you've (and one or two others) spouted off like this (espousing views very detrimental to women) - and no one else besides me spoke up about it. Silence is responsible for many tragedies in this world - and when those who claim to be "theosophical" spew or stand silently by when it is happening right in front of them need some serious 'looking-in-the-mirror' time. And to those of you who may have been upset at such degrading references to women (or any other person or group), but decided to stay silent figuring it wasn't worth it - I ask you to ask yourselves "Not worth it to whom?" Later, gentlemen, Kym From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 22:16:30 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:03:38 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: 1/3 of Adults in the USA on online Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980829220338.018d6940@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <35e8a563.391539@smtp.ihug.co.nz> References: <3.0.3.32.19980826180216.009b4db0@mail.eden.com> <3.0.3.32.19980826180216.009b4db0@mail.eden.com> At 01:13 AM 8/30/1998 GMT, you wrote: >On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:02:16 -0500, you wrote: > >>At 10:27 PM 8/26/1998 +0100, you wrote: >>>mkr wrote: >>> >>>>Here is some interesting info in today's news. Presents a great opportunity >>>>to present theosophy. Is anyone interested and awake? >>> >>>What are you suggesting mkr? The 202 million US adults are here just the >>>same. Why do you feel the internet is going to make such a difference to >>>the 70.5 million or the 202 million US citizens? It is just another super >>>highway, a broad path in an ever changing world. >>> >>>Martin Leiderman gave a measured reply, and one with which I sympathise, >>>using words like aura . . . . >>> >>>The internet is a souless place for many. >>> >>>And regarding an earlier mail: >>>>The point that is of importance to theosophists is that all the classics >>>>will be immediately accessible at *almost* *no* *cost* (other than one's >>>>time) and everyone interested can benefit from theosophy classics. On the >>>>other hand, some of the classics are already available on the web. But some >>>>theosophical organizations are still wedded to print media. How long it is >>>>going to take for them to understand the possible shrinking *market* for >>>>printed media which can be sold where as info on the net is free for most >>>>part. >>> >>>It is interesting that so far the opposite is happening. People are buying >>>more books as a result of the internet. Very clever really. People read a >>>bit of the book on the Internet, and then want to buy the book. A good >>>marketing ploy. >>>How is it really going to help humanity, spread brotherhood, reduce poverty >>>and disease in all the kingdoms of nature around the planet, more than >>>anything else? The internet can certainly divert attention away from >>>Reality. It is only as good as the people that use it. >>> >>>Tony >> >>Like other tools, Internet is just a tool. What one can do with it depends >>on one's creativity. >> >>The recent success in banning land mines was possible because all the >>coordination between activists in various countries was done using e-mail. >>I am sure there are other applications where it is showing its >>effectiveness as a tool. >> >>mkr >> >Our little TS office in New Zealand is getting things moving much >quicker with e-mail. We rely on overseas speakers to come once or >twice a year and now we can make arrangements much quicker and find >out what we need to know, overnight. That is a big help down here >where we are more isolated and out of the mainstream of things. We get >enquiries from all over about theosophy as it may pertain to NZ from >our web site. We also have begun using Amazon book site for ordering >books for our branches and the Auckland Book shop. >The members on e-mail have a good link with each other via the NZ >discuss group and most of us meet at Convention so we know each other >personally too. There is always a downside to most things but one >needs to use the positive side constructively and sidestep the >negative as much as possible. I feel that the Internet is a great >source of information. Sometimes I think it might be overkill but I >have to decided how much I have time to deal with. >Cheers >Bee I am very glad to see your Section is pioneering in the use of e-mail and Internet and probably will develop into a model that Adyar and other Sections around the world may want to copy instead of re-inventing the wheel. Most branches meet once a week and some may meet more frequently and many less frequently -- once a week. So any interaction between people interested in theosophy is mostly once a month. Many branches in the US shut down or slow down the activities during Summer. With the e-mail lists, this is changing. Not only the distribution of subscribers is Universal -- World Wide, the interaction by way of msgs and responses is going on round the clock seven days of the week. Such an activity was undreamt of a couple of years ago before the advent of commercial e-mail. In addition access to information is almost immediate. No one needs to visit the local branch library to check out a book, since the book is not in one's personal library. Coordination and correspondence relative to organizing/organization matters do get speeded up and costs less due the e-mail. On the other hand, the normal luxury one has in using snail mail is very convenient when one wants to drag their feet and act in the traditional bureaucratic manner. Such dragging feet cannot help anyone. All this points out the simple fact, as I already pointed out, is that e-mail and Internet are just tools. A very skilled person can find very effective and creative usage if motivated by right motives. The contrary is also true. I look upon e-mail and Internet just like automobiles. We know a lot of people get killed by auto. But we all continue to use it for our transportation which in turn makes us use our time effectively and efficiently. mkr From ???@??? Sat Aug 29 22:41:12 1998 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:30:00 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Dangerous ideas Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980829223000.009bb590@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980829210029.007ae3d0@pophost.micron.net> References: <199808292344.SAA19232@proteus.imagiware.com> Anytime anyone is demeaning anyone is not right especially anyone who subscribes to the First Object of TS and has been exposed to theosophy. This is all the more so in a *public* forum such as this. Kym, you have stated more eloquently what I could myself have said on this issue. IMO Jake owes a public apology to Kym. mkr ==================================================== At 09:00 PM 8/29/1998 -0600, you wrote: >Jake wrote: > >> Are you for real? How many "Marshalls" do you know who are women? > >Before your post (the one I responded to previously), I had no idea what >"Sutraman's" birth name was - so how could I possibly know what gender the >person was? The name "Marshall" was never entered into the discussion I >was referring to - at least, that I recall. > >>'And >>if one is not sure it is an insult anyway. > >Not being sure if one is male or female through e-mail is an insult? First >time I've ever heard that - nor do I believe it. > >>Also the guy posted on theos-talk a >>"rap" or free lance verse of a sorts about his appeal for various sorts of >>women - rather catchy. > >I've no idea to what post you're referring to here. > >>I don't know what world you live in, but if someone >>unjustly gets implied to have a gender identity problem around here, they >>might get killed for it. > >"Gender identity problem" does not even enter into this discussion - we're >talking about people not knowing - via e-mail - whether one is male or >female. Gender-identity is an entirely different subject and issue. > >>I think you are not for real.... Maybe this petty >>criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic ruse to >>come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise. Are you just >coming >>on to me Kym? Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50, so set >>your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested. > >Why is that many men think that when a woman (or a man) disagrees with them >or thinks them vacant in particular areas of thinking that the woman is >"just coming on to them?" That is an amazing and ridiculous train of >reasoning and has often resulted in women being subject, due to this crap, >to very dangerous situations. Maybe some men on this line will think your >reference is funny, but I do not. > >Let me make it clear to you, Jake: 1) I think you were out of line and >facts, and just plain unfair, in your attack upon Dallas (I may be guilty >of that myself). 2) There is NO solicitation for sex, or any other kind of >personal relationship, in my post to you (nor has there ever been nor will >there ever be) and for you to infer publically that it is IS a major, and >unacceptable, insult. > >Finally, your statement "typical femine masochistic ruse" is filthy and >dead wrong. Your opinion of women (which includes not only me, but the >wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers and all other females who are held >near and dear in the hearts of men on this list) is revolting. > >End of thread. - No, on second thought, I'm out of here altogether. I'm >sick to death of men thinking this way and other men standing by while it >happens. This isn't the first time you've (and one or two others) spouted >off like this (espousing views very detrimental to women) - and no one else >besides me spoke up about it. Silence is responsible for many tragedies in >this world - and when those who claim to be "theosophical" spew or stand >silently by when it is happening right in front of them need some serious >'looking-in-the-mirror' time. > >And to those of you who may have been upset at such degrading references to >women (or any other person or group), but decided to stay silent figuring >it wasn't worth it - I ask you to ask yourselves "Not worth it to whom?" > > >Later, gentlemen, > > >Kym From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 11:11:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:13:15 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Cleverness only Message-ID: <2030e73b.35e97a1b@aol.com>> MKR writes: >IMO Jake owes a public apology to Kym. =================== Why didn't you ask for an apology to Sutratman also, then? I believe the situation is quite the reverse. I told the truth, tried to defend someone with FACTS and a reasoned analysis (which no one else did) and Rilke, as usual, makes a post of petty ill-reasoned criticism and insult, which one almost has to respond to - thus a form of harrassment. Also, we are supposed to be after truth here, and if one is so locked into popular politically correct opinions -- like those that refuse to acknowlege basic facts of femine psychology obvious to those that aren't too blind to see - then it is quite hopeless isn't it. So MKR, if I were to repeat to you Rilke's quip to me, as a small example, and tell you: "Don't get your panties all in a bunch!," I suppose it won't irritate you at all. If one dishes it out all the time, and refuses to take the same dished back to them..... well this is hardly even fair on the gradeschool playground rules that seem to dominate here sometimes ( and gradeschoolers aren't very fair, nor can they think too well.) If you look through Rilke's posts, you will see that her main motivation is not philosophical, but just to irritate and largely to pettily and ill-reasonably criticise (as well as a delight in being clever for cleverness sake itself), which is hardly a positive trait. - Jake J. From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 11:26:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:14:40 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Land Mines and Tibet Message-ID: <30380ac5.35e97a70@aol.com>> In a message dated 98-08-29 20:00:05 EDT, you write: << It is very easy to pass moral judgment when you're not the one facing the wrong side of a gun. Bart Lidofsky >> And there is no mental action more worthless than determining a course of action on the basis of another person's morality. If a burglar gets in my house, I shoot him. I don't debate morality or karma, I just put out a clip full of little pieces of lead and then rather than worry about the silly legal niceties, dump the body in the nearest river., clean up the mess and go out for a nice dinner. It has been over 30 years since I worried about whether an action is moral or not and I must confess I have never missed the worry. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 12:41:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 12:30:30 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Cleverness only Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980830123030.009b3aa0@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <2030e73b.35e97a1b@aol.com>> I am going to leave it at what I have already said. mkr At 12:13 PM 8/30/1998 EDT, you wrote: >MKR writes: >>IMO Jake owes a public apology to Kym. >=================== > Why didn't you ask for an apology to Sutratman also, then? > I believe the situation is quite the reverse. I told the truth, tried >to defend someone with FACTS and a reasoned analysis (which no one else did) >and Rilke, as usual, makes a post of petty ill-reasoned criticism and insult, >which one almost has to respond to - thus a form of harrassment. > Also, we are supposed to be after truth here, and if one is so locked >into popular politically correct opinions -- like those that refuse to >acknowlege basic facts of femine psychology obvious to those that aren't too >blind to see - then it is quite hopeless isn't it. > So MKR, if I were to repeat to you Rilke's quip to me, as a small >example, and tell you: "Don't get your panties all in a bunch!," I suppose it >won't irritate you at all. If one dishes it out all the time, and refuses >to take the same dished back to them..... well this is hardly even fair on the >gradeschool playground rules that seem to dominate here sometimes ( and >gradeschoolers aren't very fair, nor can they think too well.) > If you look through Rilke's posts, you will see that her main >motivation is not philosophical, but just to irritate and largely to pettily >and ill-reasonably criticise (as well as a delight in being clever for >cleverness sake itself), which is hardly a positive trait. > - Jake J. > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 12:56:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 07:41:38 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: KARMA -- Its operation -- Universal as reaction following choice. Message-ID: <002a01bdd43d$c8e9c8e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 29th 1998 Dear Bart:: Bhagavad Gita, as I understand its teachings separates the Individuality (the Krishna within each one of us -- "I am the Ego seated in the hearts of all beings") from the "Personality" (Arjuna -- we as embodied minds awake here and now in the milieu of this Earth of ours). Krishna speaks of "righteous war." I have puzzled over this for many years. What is "killed," or "destroyed?" I think he indicates that the formation in the Personality of certain ways of thinking, and of certain tendencies of action is meant. Intrinsically (as immortal MONADS, each undergoing its own kind of evolution) they cannot be "destroyed." But the present formation can be dispersed, so that after some time they may be reassembled, under the cycle of Reincarnation, into a new personality where the indwelling Ego (Krishna) can again try to tutor the new Personality into channels of honor, brotherhood and "good." In any case it is Nature (which Krishna says) prevails in these actions. It is apparently rarely that Mankind have to intervene and actually fight a "righteous war." On this kind of "righteous war" some hints are given Between the Adepts of the Right and the Left-hand Paths SD II 48, 63, 202-4, 384-90, 492-8, 505, SD I 194-5, 201-3, 418-9, In Initiation: SD II 379, 380, Triple meaning: SD I 202, 419, 419fn, I think taken all in all these make for interesting food for thought. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 3:05 PM > From: "Bart Lidofsky" > Subject: Re: Re: KARMA -- Its operation -- Universal as reaction following choice. >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > >> In regard specifically to the question of our ability or inability to chose >> the right thing, or to choose "between two evils" implies that we, >> interiorly, know what the RIGHT THING IS. Or, we would not have a sense of >> a "bad" thing >> >> Now I may be in error in offering this, and some aspects of karmic action >> and reaction are not considered here -- as for instance the effect on our >> "skandhas" (or little lives) when we make bad decisions -- and how they >> become the "carriers" of our "bad" karma. >> >> But there is food for much consideration here, I think. > > First of all, thank you for understanding the point I have been trying >to bring out. > > Now to the point: For whatever reason, we can end up in a situation >where all the possible choices, including inaction, are the "wrong >thing". The major lesson of the Bhagavad Gita is that, even if all >actions involve doing the "wrong thing", inaction is also a choice, and >may be one of the worst ones. > > Bart Lidofsky > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 13:03:09 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 07:50:22 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #405 Message-ID: <002b01bdd43d$caa5d0c0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 28th 1998 A thought occurs to me. If we fight, if we defend ourselves to preserve physical continuity, do we not do this because this present personality (as all personalities do) FEARS DEATH. If so, why is there this fear ? Does Theosophy offer a reasoned explanation concerning the fate of the Personality, its true value, and what ought to be done to improve and change it ? I do not think that Theosophy advocates slavery, whether of the body, or of the mind -- or of any kind. The EGO, being IMMORTAL is the real Mann or Woman. It is interior to the personal being, but is always detached -- and evidence for this lies in our continued and universal capacity to reason on principles that are detached from our circumstances. [ Epictetus is a case in point, historically. ] So the problem is one of time -- it the matter of making a decision. Many factors I sense are involved. We learn and also teach. Question is when, and how. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 4:04 PM > From: "Jake Jaqua" > Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #405 >Bart writes in 405: > >> Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or >>generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices >>do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of >>nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those >>not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on >>arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others. >> Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they >>cause much suffering...... >===================================== > I think this is true, but then maybe sometimes the choices are so bad >it is just better to die, or whatever. I think Tibet should have had a >better defense system but land minds is a question - better to kill than miam, >perhaps. In this world, anyone who believes that self-defense is not ethical >is way too idealistic, I think, even buddhists. In China, everyone that >posts on this mailing list whould be in jail unless they quit voicing their >viewpoints. I have a reference where the D. Lama expresses the viewpoint that >under some situations violence is "OK," but not in the current situation with >China - and always productive of more violence, I think he said also. (will >look the reference up if someone wants.) >===================== >Rilke writes: >>Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do - >>referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure? >====================== > Are you for real? How many "Marshalls" do you know who are women? 'And >if one is not sure it is an insult anyway. Also the guy posted on theos-talk a >"rap" or free lance verse of a sorts about his appeal for various sorts of >women - rather catchy. I don't know what world you live in, but if someone >unjustly gets implied to have a gender identity problem around here, they >might get killed for it. I think you are not for real.... Maybe this petty >criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic ruse to >come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise. Are you just coming >on to me Kym? Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50, so set >your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested. >=================== >Darren writes: > >>Just Alexis/Alexei on TI !!!!!!! >==================================== > As you wrote this in reference to my post, what the heck does it mean? I >would think of Alexis/Alexei as being a woman unless I got a different context >off of their letters. This subject is probably better off dropped. > > - Jake J. > > > From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 13:10:38 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 10:59:15 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Soul Violations Message-Id: <199808301759.AA11784@lafn.org> The soul of man does violence to itself, first of all, when it becomes an abscess and, as it were, a tumor on the universe, so far as it can. For to be vexed at anything which happens is a separation of ourselves from nature, in some part of which the natures of all other things are contained. In the next place, the soul does violence to itself when it turns away from any man, or even moves toward him with the intention of injuring, such as are the souls of those who are angry. In the third place, the soul does violence to itself when it is overpowered by pleasure or pain. Fourthly, when it plays a part, and does or says anything insincerely and untruly. Fifthly, when it allows any act of its own and any movement to be without an aim, and does anything thoughtlessly and without considering what it is, it being right that even the smallest things be done with reference to an end; and the end of rational animals is to follow the reason and the law of the most ancient city and polity. Marcus Aurelius MEDITATIONS II, 16 ***************** -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 15:56:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 16:45:28 EDT From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #405 Message-ID: <8dd8a99b.35e9b9e8@aol.com>> In a message dated 98-08-30 14:06:51 EDT, you write: << A thought occurs to me. If we fight, if we defend ourselves to preserve physical continuity, do we not do this because this present personality (as all personalities do) FEARS DEATH. >> Not so much fear of death, but wanting to continue the sheer joy of living. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 16:11:11 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:09:26 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Happy theosophist Message-Id: <199808302109.AA16896@lafn.org> His name has been changed to honor his modesty, but he is an American and a theosophist -- note the small "t". References to Sai or Swami or Baba are to Bhagavan Sathya Sai Baba. The report below was not written by the poster of it -- NW. **************************** I want to share the story of a very special sai devotee [of Sri Sathya Sai Baba] from our center -- Mr. Ralph Smith who is 91 going on to 92 on Oct. 6th. He is the first one to start our center here. It was very interesting to observe Smith (the way he likes to be called) as I was coming into Sai. He has the most beautiful expression of JOY on his face. He is always smiling and laughing, happy and radiant. Never a grin on his face. I started to get curious to know what makes one to be joyous always. Living in a continuous state of stress of competing for material goods and wealth, fighting for name and fame, it was a refreshing feeling to come across someone like Smith. I visited him in his apt. in a rough neighborhood as I was coming into Sai, and I was astounded to his way of life. His place was filled with spiritual vibrations; with all the material of spiritual masters, Jesus and Baba. Wonderful Agarbatti fragrance and spirituality filled every inch of his place. I never visited those neighborhoods before as I come from a different background. It is only after coming into Swami, we learnt to mix with all different people coming from all different backgrounds. As per Baba's saying that attracted me towards Him first was, 'THERE IS ONLY ONE CASTE, CASTE OF HUMANITY' started to make me watch keenly all different people in the center and Smith was no.1 in that. When I discovered that he lives alone, in an apt. that is not in a safe neighborhood, (with minimal pension and social security money), depends on public transportation, yet so rich with spiritual wisdom, I was taken aback as I never came across someone like that before. I developed fondness for him like a father, as I was missing my father a lot and started to feel close to him. When I learnt that he was going to have knee surgery, I was frightened with the thought that how on earth he was going to manage living alone, that too, on the second floor of the bldg. in those conditions. Suddenly I had the thought 'why don't I take care of him at our house till he is ready to be on his own again'. I never did anything like this before and it was all too new to me. Not ego that it was great that we do things for others, but it was a new concept for me then. If we don't do these things now, it is like failing Baba. I asked him to stay with us for a while during and after surgery till he was ready and on his own again. I got to know him well. I started to discover the 'secret for happiness' and the reason for the radiance and love, and glow in his face. I started to learn from him that not all the wealth in the world can make one ever happy, as happiness that comes from the worldly things is transient; but the real happiness or joy is nothing but a 'state of mind'. We became very close afterwards and I started to learn from him Swami's teachings, the concept of 'simple living and higher thinking' and the real meaning and goal of life. Some important events took place in his life and he moved back to his birthplace again. He did something that is so profound and amazing that touched my heart and I am sure that it will touch all your hearts. I decided to share it (with his permission) before I make my trip to Swami and when he is still alive. We all can learn something from his life. I was there at Parthi [near Bangalore] when they made the announcement that they were planning to build the superspeciality hospital. They started to announce the names of the benefactors and as the list went on, suddenly I heard the name Mr. Ralph Smith from U.S.A. I was shocked for a minute being not able to comprehend what I heard as they read only three names from the U.S. and Smith's name, was one of them. I asked the person next to me and my husband later, they both said that it was Smith's name. I couldn't wait to come back and tell Smith that I heard his name being announced. After coming back to the U.S.,I called Smith as usual to see how he was doing and mentioned that we heard his name as a contributor to the hospital. He was shocked and upset, and on enquiring, he said that he wanted to remain anonymous. I wanted to be sure that what we heard was right and also wanted to know, if he didn't mind, what he contributed. I was really curious as the Smith I know couldn't have given so much, as we always take food, groceries and medicines for him whenever we visit him, not that he needs but for our own satisfaction. His living style shows that he is not loaded. It started to bother me; I was feeling ashamed that I was giving him small things when he was rich. I had to know what he contributed. He didn't want to talk about it as he was upset that his name came out. I tried to tell him that it was okay and it would be an inspiration to others in future. I told him that we need living examples. Finally, he said that what he gave was to do with number 108 and left it there. I still couldn't figure it out. He has no money and if he gave $ 108, they won't make a big deal to announce it. What could it be? At the end he said it was $ 108,000, I thought I was going to faint. Oh, my God, I sure was making a mistake of giving him little things when he is rich. As I was torturing myself, he decided to tell me the whole story. His folks, his x-wife (for 2 yrs.) and his sister that passed away recently, left him money and he made a contribution to the Sathya Sai Central Trust even before they made the announcement of the construction of the hospital. I couldn't help from wondering; when he had so much money, why didn't he have his own house, his own car and a maid to help him around the house? He travelled on a hot summery day, sweating, changing from bus to bus to come and visit me in the hospital one day. When I asked him about it, he said that he didn't want to touch that money as it is God's money, not his money. It came from God and it has to go to back to God. He is a man of high values and principles and he told me that he wants to live with his hard earned money only. He retired as a factory worker and lives only with that income. I felt wonderful to come across and know someone like him. He said that he sent that money to Baba and asked Him to use it for a good cause. Time went on but he didn't know what happened to that money. He was extremely pleased to know that Swami was going to use that money for the superspeciality hospital. He wrote a thank you letter to Baba, and felt happy and relieved that his inherited money was used for a good cause. If you happen to visit the Superspeciality Hospital, [a free hospital for the poor] you can see his name on the board at the front. To read about special people is different than witnessing and living with them in real life. Isn't it? He is very special to us. Most of us consider him as a living saint today. Can you imagine one from not being tempted from the luxuries and comforts money can buy in the present world when it is right within your reach? He lives by the principle that he shouldn't go for any more than the basic needs of living. He says that God is giving him too much when he doesn't need so much referring to his pension and social security income. The other interesting thing with Smith is that he got his tomb ready with the engraving of 'OM SAI RAM' on it which is unique and one of a kind. We have some great examples to learn from 'HOW TO GIVE, NOT GET' and 'where the real happiness lies'. He said that his home and heart are always open to welcome anyone. Going to his house is like going on a pilgrimage with lakes and hills on the way to this little town. He has Sai friends from East Coast to West Coast and he receives phone calls and letters and Sai mementos from all of them. To learn the key to happiness, he is a great soul to know. Cheerful and joyful and walking love on earth is Smith. He stops to talk and spread love to stones, plants, animals and humans. He is a blessed soul and came to teach the world that the real joy of life is LOVING ALL; and, 'HAPPINESS IS A STATE OF MIND'. *************** -- <> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles "Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it." Blavatsky From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 17:11:09 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:49:30 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Pies and ice cream Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980831094930.007ba100@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808301400.JAA32701@proteus.imagiware.com> Jake In the terms you used yourself, and I quote: >Unless I'm misreading, its a rather nasty thing to do isn't it? I think you misread Dallas and Kym at several points. I saw nothing nasty about the early stages of this line of discussion, from them, and nothing at all nasty about what Kym said later, for example: >Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do - >referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure? Then you said: >[snip] I think you are not for real.... Maybe this petty >criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic ruse to >come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise. Are you just coming >on to me Kym? Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50, so set >your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested. I'm even older, but I don't know what on earth provoked you to think this had any place in the discussion. I just thought "Yuk", when I read it. I think our assumptions about other people are often the most destructive factors in our interactions with them, and you certainly revealed a dazzling array in those few words. Misreading and nasty .... Hmmmmm. Sorry, Jake; it hasn't been a good combination. Murray From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 18:56:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:46:58 EDT From: "Jake Jaqua" Subject: Offense? Message-ID: <1625aa35.35e9e472@aol.com>> Murray, you wrote: >I think you misread Dallas and Kym at several points. I saw nothing nasty >about the early stages of this line of discussion, from them, and nothing >at all nasty about what Kym said later, for example: =============================== Well, on Dallas's point..... Calling someone a "him/her" when you know (from the signed private letter to Dallas, which Dallas posted publically) that they are a Man is the same as labelling them a homosexual. Wouldn't you agree? To most/all male heterosexuals, this is highly offensive, especially so when it is done in your absence, and thus unable to defend yourself. A person who regarded themselves as a homosexual would not find it offensive. If you say it is not offensive, you haven't understood the issue, or you have personal knowledge they guy is "gay,"or you are a liar, or you regard yourself as a homosexual, which is not anyone's business. As regarding Rilke's frequent lewdness (and my lewding her back for effect, at least) - it is a matter of record. I can re-post one that is especially off-color for effect. There's a lot of chickens on this site! - Jake J. From ???@??? Sun Aug 30 19:11:08 1998 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 20:13:01 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: Offense? Message-ID: <35E9EA8D.446E28A0@sprynet.com> References: <1625aa35.35e9e472@aol.com>> Barkus23@aol.com wrote: > Well, on Dallas's point..... Calling someone a "him/her" when you > know (from the signed private letter to Dallas, which Dallas posted > publically) that they are a Man is the same as labelling them a homosexual. > Wouldn't you agree? To most/all male heterosexuals, this is highly > offensive, especially so when it is done in your absence, and thus unable to > defend yourself. A person who regarded themselves as a homosexual would not > find it offensive. My uncle was a semi-major gay activist, so I have taken an interest in gay issues. I can tell you that I have NEVER heard of anything like this, and think that it is totally ridiculous. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 01:41:08 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:43:47 +0900 From: "Anthony K Kang" Subject: Theosophical arts? Message-ID: <35EA4623.FB8F8065@mail.posri.re.kr> References: <199808302211.RAA00773@proteus.imagiware.com> I wonder if some Theosophical arts can be obtained through internet. We are planning to open a website in Korean, and we would like to collect good images, pictures, or other arts so that we may use them in the website. We do not have much material here in Korea, and not many Koreans are familiar with English. I need your support and help. Anthony Kang From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 04:11:12 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 02:02:17 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Land Mines and Tibet Message-ID: <007e01bdd4be$878bc200$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 31st 1998 Perhaps that is why it is important to impersonalize all considerations. If we personalize them, or politicize them we pre-set conditions and limits on the logic of answering. Theosophy is not a matter of opinion, it is a science of applying universal principles. Now if different principles are adopted, different answers are achieved. So why not let us make sure together that the same universal principles are seen to apply and then our independent answers will tally closely, and can be universally applied. Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 5:04 PM > From: "Bart Lidofsky" > Subject: Re: Land Mines and Tibet >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: >> At least they did not use land mines which are cowardly weapons designed (as >> is "saturation bombing" or "nuclear bombing" and other acts of terrorism, >> for instance) to subdue the armed might of a country by spreading terror and >> horror among its people. Such acts are indefensible, and any country (and >> its citizens) who support and permit this are inviting the attention of the >> karma of unbrotherliness and insensitive negligence >> upon themselves. [ That is my opinion.] > > In bombing, you are killing people who may or may not be involved in >invading your land. With land mines, you are killing primarily those who >are physically invading your country; all they need to do to stay alive >is to leave you alone. The problem is those who innocently walk on to >land mines, not knowing they are there. But those innocents and far more >would be endangered by an invasion in any case. Once again, we are >looking at a situation where ALL solutions involve evil, and do not >forget that the action of doing nothing is still an action. > > It is very easy to pass moral judgment when you're not the one facing >the wrong side of a gun. > > Bart Lidofsky > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 04:26:10 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:57:09 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Re: KARMA -- Its operation and the Bhagavad Gita Message-ID: <007d01bdd4be$86453840$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 31st '98 Dear Bart: 2nd look -- I believe that the Bhagavad Gita sets out the main considerations for a person to look at and then lets him make his own decisions. Arjuna's questions are increasingly probing (as the dialog unfolds) and elicit from Krishna certain optimum considerations. But none of those are set out as matters of belief or of imposed discipline. Arjuna is always left free to choose for himself, although Krishna does expose for his consideration what a "Wise" man might do, and what a "Wise" man might think of, or consider, etc... Krishna speaks of Karma, of reincarnation, of the struggle between "good" and "evil," then he describes the Universe and all beings in it as partaking of the mixture of the 3 "qualities" or "Gunas," -- the Sattva (truth, spiritual), the Rajas (active, volitional), and Tamas (inertia, laziness, inactivity). The Individual is said to be a small replica of the Universal, and Spirit is said to pervade all things without any exceptions. Mankind chooses because of innate freedom of perception. Perception emanates from the Spiritual (Sattva) quality which is inherent. Choice is activity, or free-will -- a Rajasic element. Tamas is the condition of the great mass of inactive matter (matter in which the germ of independence and progression has not yet been stirred into action by the impact of mental energy). While the "field of battle" is the Personality the opposing (yet closely related opponents) are the forces of the Mind and those of the emotional and feeling nature -- Kama. The "killing" of the congeries of lives that give Kama a form, permits at the same time, those individual elements to access the independently active Mind, and this is then stirred into action. And this is an outline of the great struggle for Existence represented by the processes of manifestation and evolution along the three lines of Spirit (Monadic), Intellectual (Manasic) and Physical (life-forms and forces). [ as in SD I 181 ] The Buddha in his many discourses does the same -- and so too do all the great Teachers of humanity that we have any accurate record of. I would think that we are all teaching ourselves to find out what is the best "thing" to be done, and we are given plenty of latitude and information. Our vacillation, uncertainty and choosing indicates to me that while thee may be indecision, there is a Power, and entitative "something" in each of us, which is able to discern the "Needs" from the "wants" -- as Maslow might put it. Consider the question of Theosophy and its principles and doctrines. If we are not thoroughly familiar with them, we put ourselves at a disadvantage. What, and where, are we going to secure as a sound base from which to proceed ? Theosophy does try to expose for consideration the hidden basis for many of the physical occurrences and situations we hear of or are involved in. And it speaks of much more in the way of information than our present educational curricula expose. But we see that the horizons of academic study and the recording of advances proceeds and there is far more that is now clear to those "halls" today, than when HPB wrote, and the interesting thing is that Theosophy receives corroboration increasingly. I would hope that during the next 100 years there will be greater progress and recognition of what HPB did. But, it, as always, remains with us to choose what we will study and where we will take ourselves. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 3:05 PM > From: "Bart Lidofsky" > Subject: Re: Re: KARMA -- Its operation -- Universal as reaction following choice. >W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > >> In regard specifically to the question of our ability or inability to chose >> the right thing, or to choose "between two evils" implies that we, >> interiorly, know what the RIGHT THING IS. Or, we would not have a sense of >> a "bad" thing >> >> Now I may be in error in offering this, and some aspects of karmic action >> and reaction are not considered here -- as for instance the effect on our >> "skandhas" (or little lives) when we make bad decisions -- and how they >> become the "carriers" of our "bad" karma. >> >> But there is food for much consideration here, I think. > > First of all, thank you for understanding the point I have been trying >to bring out. > > Now to the point: For whatever reason, we can end up in a situation >where all the possible choices, including inaction, are the "wrong >thing". The major lesson of the Bhagavad Gita is that, even if all >actions involve doing the "wrong thing", inaction is also a choice, and >may be one of the worst ones. > > Bart Lidofsky > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 07:41:08 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:43:11 +0800 From: "Peter A Tryde" Subject: Landmines and Tibet Message-ID: <35EA9A5F.9F512E68@netvigator.com> Further to the recent postings, it may be of interest to cite what the Buddha said on the subject of war: One day, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and said, " I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha teach the doctrine of complete selfsurrender? Should I suffer the evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause should be forbidden?" The Buddha replied, "He who deserves punishment must be puni- shed. And he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness. All warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. Struggle must exist, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But make certain that you do not struggle in the interest of self against truth and justice. He who struggles for peace and truth will have great reward; even his defeat will be deemed a victory. "If a person goes to battle even for a righteous cause, then Sinha, he must be prepared to be slain by his enemies because death is the destiny of warriors. And should his fate overtake him, he has no reason to complain. But if he is victorious his success may be deemed great, but no matter how great it is, the wheel of fortune may turn again and bring his life down into the dust. However, if he moderates himself and extinguishes all hatred in his heart, if he lifts his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, "Come now and make peace and let us be brothers," then he will gain a victory that is not a transient success; for the fruits of that victory will remain forever. "Great is a successful general, Sinha, but he who conquers self is the greater victor. This teaching of conquest of self, Sinha, is not taught to destroy the lives of others, but to protect them. The person who has conquered himself is more fit to live, to be successful and to gain victories that is the person who is a slave of self. The person whose mind is free from illusion of self, will stand and not fall in the battle of life. He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with no failures. He will be successful in his enterprise and his success will endure. He who harbours love of truth in his heart will live and not suffer, for he has drunk the water of immortality. So struggle courage- oursly and wisely. Then you can be a soldier of Truth." Kind regards. Peter From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 08:26:09 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:22:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Turning point Message-Id: <199808311322.JAA28498@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Hey gang, I'm expecting my copies of the Cayce book today or in the next few days. Have been feeling for some time that there is no real spiritual or intellectual nourishment for me in this list, and that I want to focus on constructive communications-- which don't seem to be happening here. I'm signing off now, wanting to focus on the Cayce material more and Theosophy less in light of the new book coming out. Kym's departure made me feel more like leaving, but my course was already set. Thanks to all of you, the majority, who have been kind, sincere, truthseeking, openminded, brotherly/sisterly. The fundamentalist minority will always, alas, shout you down. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 12:25:10 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:20:08 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Turning point Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980831122008.009b9570@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199808311322.JAA28498@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> At 09:22 AM 8/31/1998 -0400, you wrote: >fundamentalist minority will always, alas, shout you down. > >Cheers, >Paul Dear Paul: Let us not be deterred by anyone who want to shout anyone down. In the past I have seen the shouters sooner or later leave... ...doss From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 12:34:53 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:17:19 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Landmines and Tibet Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980831121719.009b7260@mail.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <35EA9A5F.9F512E68@netvigator.com> Thanks for the Timely quote. mkr At 08:43 PM 8/31/1998 +0800, you wrote: >Further to the recent postings, it may be of interest to cite what >the Buddha said on the subject of war: > >One day, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and >said, " I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King >to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches >infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the >Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the >Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our >homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha >teach the doctrine of complete selfsurrender? Should I suffer the >evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who >threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha >maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause >should be forbidden?" > >The Buddha replied, "He who deserves punishment must be puni- >shed. And he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Do not do >injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness. >All warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. >Struggle must exist, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But make >certain that you do not struggle in the interest of self against truth >and justice. He who struggles for peace and truth will have great >reward; even his defeat will be deemed a victory. > >"If a person goes to battle even for a righteous cause, then Sinha, >he must be prepared to be slain by his enemies because death is the >destiny of warriors. And should his fate overtake him, he has no >reason to complain. But if he is victorious his success may be >deemed great, but no matter how great it is, the wheel of fortune >may turn again and bring his life down into the dust. However, if he >moderates himself and extinguishes all hatred in his heart, if he lifts >his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, "Come now and >make peace and let us be brothers," then he will gain a victory that >is not a transient success; for the fruits of that victory will remain >forever. > >"Great is a successful general, Sinha, but he who conquers self is the >greater victor. This teaching of conquest of self, Sinha, is not taught >to destroy the lives of others, but to protect them. The person who >has conquered himself is more fit to live, to be successful and to gain >victories that is the person who is a slave of self. The person whose >mind is free from illusion of self, will stand and not fall in the >battle of >life. He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with >no failures. He will be successful in his enterprise and his success >will >endure. He who harbours love of truth in his heart will live and not >suffer, for he has drunk the water of immortality. So struggle courage- >oursly and wisely. Then you can be a soldier of Truth." > >Kind regards. >Peter > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 12:40:10 1998 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:31:07 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re: Landmines and Tibet THE BUDDHA ON WAR AND JUSTICE Message-ID: <001601bdd506$ecbef6e0$03e78ccc@nwc.net> Aug 31st 1998 Dear Peter: Many thanks for your sending the quotation from the Buddha on war. That is valuable. Dallas > From: "Peter A Tryde" > Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:49 AM > Subject: Landmines and Tibet >Further to the recent postings, it may be of interest to cite what >the Buddha said on the subject of war: > >One day, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and >said, " I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King >to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches >infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the >Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the >Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our >homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha >teach the doctrine of complete selfsurrender? Should I suffer the >evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who >threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha >maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause >should be forbidden?" > >The Buddha replied, "He who deserves punishment must be puni- >shed. And he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Do not do >injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness. >All warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. >Struggle must exist, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But make >certain that you do not struggle in the interest of self against truth >and justice. He who struggles for peace and truth will have great >reward; even his defeat will be deemed a victory. > >"If a person goes to battle even for a righteous cause, then Sinha, >he must be prepared to be slain by his enemies because death is the >destiny of warriors. And should his fate overtake him, he has no >reason to complain. But if he is victorious his success may be >deemed great, but no matter how great it is, the wheel of fortune >may turn again and bring his life down into the dust. However, if he >moderates himself and extinguishes all hatred in his heart, if he lifts >his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, "Come now and >make peace and let us be brothers," then he will gain a victory that >is not a transient success; for the fruits of that victory will remain >forever. > >"Great is a successful general, Sinha, but he who conquers self is the >greater victor. This teaching of conquest of self, Sinha, is not taught >to destroy the lives of others, but to protect them. The person who >has conquered himself is more fit to live, to be successful and to gain >victories that is the person who is a slave of self. The person whose >mind is free from illusion of self, will stand and not fall in the >battle of >life. He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with >no failures. He will be successful in his enterprise and his success >will >endure. He who harbours love of truth in his heart will live and not >suffer, for he has drunk the water of immortality. So struggle courage- >oursly and wisely. Then you can be a soldier of Truth." > >Kind regards. >Peter > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 18:25:08 1998 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:06:00 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford" Subject: Him/her - re Offense Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980901110600.0079bab0@iprolink.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199808311400.JAA23918@proteus.imagiware.com> Jake, > Well, on Dallas's point..... Calling someone a "him/her" when you >know (from the signed private letter to Dallas, which Dallas posted >publically) that they are a Man is the same as labelling them a homosexual. >Wouldn't you agree? Absolutely not, in the context. Dallas's use of "him/her" - and I have checked back on the early message in this thread - was so far from the implication of homosexual labelling, in tone and obvious intent, that I have been amazed that you think that others could draw that from it. Anyway, "him/her" is not calling anybody homosexual - bisexual or asexual would be the nearest it gets. Sutratman himself didn't seem to be too fazed about it, either; the most chiding thing he said was "You must have forgotten." >.... A person who regarded themselves as a homosexual would not find it >offensive. Why not, by your criteria? Everybody has a female component, to some degree, whether they are physically male or female or both or neither, and everybody has a male component vice-versa, so with your mind set, there's something to offend everybody in "him/her"! But him comes before her in this, so what are you moaning about, man??? > If you say it is not offensive, you haven't understood the issue, or you >have personal knowledge they guy is "gay,"or you are a liar, or you regard >yourself as a homosexual, which is not anyone's business. The most likely case isn't in the list: how about the plain, little ol' assumption that Dallas genuinely didn't intend offense and that most people on this discussion list thought little of it until you brought it up? The issue has many facets, but the main one - the potential hurtfulness of deliberately calling a person by the opposite gender - deserves deep consideration. I am open to your feelings on this, and am willing to participate in discussion on this list on the subject, but for now, I would just say that the intention of the sender and the psychological makeup of the receiver are both important parts of the equation. And this issue is just a small part of the whole vexed inter-gender conflict - one riddled by historical imbalance, exploitation, non-recognition, misunderstanding, hurt and injury. Have you noticed how a sense of hurt not only can result from injury, but often fuels an act of injury? The aching little child at the controls of the tank, so to speak? I do not consider myself separate from this, by the way. I have learnt much from Kym's writing on the subject, and I think her feelings would be the minutest tip of a long-existing iceberg for many women. Men have their equivalent set of feelings and accumulated hurts too, so I am not indifferent to where you're coming from. > As regarding Rilke's frequent lewdness (and my lewding her back for >effect, at least) - it is a matter of record. I can re-post one that is >especially off-color for effect. Oh, good! A bit of lewdness keeps us all balanced. I don't mind who it comes from, either, but let's be conscious of our intent to hurt when it arises, and of the fact that we have engendered hurt, when that arises. The feedback from others is a valuable indicator in this - to be weighed carefully, of course :-) In any relationship, including membership of a discussion group. What will you do with the feedback you have received? Murray From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 19:10:08 1998 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 09:41:35 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: theosophistry Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980901094135.007fc730@ozemail.com.au> this night has opened my eyes From ???@??? Mon Aug 31 19:20:18 1998 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 09:40:22 +0900 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: Him/her - re Offense Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980901094022.007f4ca0@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980901110600.0079bab0@iprolink.co.nz> References: <199808311400.JAA23918@proteus.imagiware.com> The same situation happened on TI, I assumed the name Alexis was female and was branded a homophobe. So there you go. DP At 11:06 AM 9/1/98 +1200, you wrote: >Jake, > >> Well, on Dallas's point..... Calling someone a "him/her" when you >>know (from the signed private letter to Dallas, which Dallas posted >>publically) that they are a Man is the same as labelling them a homosexual. >>Wouldn't you agree? > >Absolutely not, in the context. Dallas's use of "him/her" - and I have >checked back on the early message in this thread - was so far from the >implication of homosexual labelling, in tone and obvious intent, that I >have been amazed that you think that others could draw that from it. > >Anyway, "him/her" is not calling anybody homosexual - bisexual or asexual >would be the nearest it gets. Sutratman himself didn't seem to be too fazed >about it, either; the most chiding thing he said was "You must have >forgotten." > >>.... A person who regarded themselves as a homosexual would not find it >>offensive. > >Why not, by your criteria? Everybody has a female component, to some >degree, whether they are physically male or female or both or neither, and >everybody has a male component vice-versa, so with your mind set, there's >something to offend everybody in "him/her"! > >But him comes before her in this, so what are you moaning about, man??? > >> If you say it is not offensive, you haven't understood the issue, or >you >>have personal knowledge they guy is "gay,"or you are a liar, or you regard >>yourself as a homosexual, which is not anyone's business. > >The most likely case isn't in the list: how about the plain, little ol' >assumption that Dallas genuinely didn't intend offense and that most people >on this discussion list thought little of it until you brought it up? > >The issue has many facets, but the main one - the potential hurtfulness of >deliberately calling a person by the opposite gender - deserves deep >consideration. I am open to your feelings on this, and am willing to >participate in discussion on this list on the subject, but for now, I would >just say that the intention of the sender and the psychological makeup of >the receiver are both important parts of the equation. > >And this issue is just a small part of the whole vexed inter-gender >conflict - one riddled by historical imbalance, exploitation, >non-recognition, misunderstanding, hurt and injury. Have you noticed how a >sense of hurt not only can result from injury, but often fuels an act of >injury? The aching little child at the controls of the tank, so to speak? I >do not consider myself separate from this, by the way. > >I have learnt much from Kym's writing on the subject, and I think her >feelings would be the minutest tip of a long-existing iceberg for many >women. Men have their equivalent set of feelings and accumulated hurts too, >so I am not indifferent to where you're coming from. > >> As regarding Rilke's frequent lewdness (and my lewding her back for >>effect, at least) - it is a matter of record. I can re-post one that is >>especially off-color for effect. > >Oh, good! A bit of lewdness keeps us all balanced. I don't mind who it >comes from, either, but let's be conscious of our intent to hurt when it >arises, and of the fact that we have engendered hurt, when that arises. The >feedback from others is a valuable indicator in this - to be weighed >carefully, of course :-) In any relationship, including membership of a >discussion group. > >What will you do with the feedback you have received? > >Murray > > > > > > >